You're such an ass, grow up!

I can ask the question ainy clearer If you don't get it, then I assume the answer is "no". LLMs are still just sophisticated toys. Never mind, carry on. — 180 Proof

In a fit of your famous clarity, I think you may have meant 'can't'. And 'no' cannot be an answer to the question you asked:

So what, if any, philosophical questions does ChatGPT# ever raise (without begging them)? — 180 Proof

no — 180 Proof

See? It doesn't work.

I think you may have meant 'can't'. — bert1

Yes, thanks for catching the typo.

See? It doesn't work.

Well, at least @Sam26 got the sarcasm. :wink:

Well, at least Sam26 got the sarcasm. — 180 Proof

'yes' doesn't work either.

Can you explain his sarcasm?

OpenAI released their new GPT-4o model today. ('o' stands for 'omni'). It is now available for free to users who don't have a paid subscription to ChatGPT Plus. There is however a limit of 16 messaged per 3 hours for free tier users.

I first interacted with it through the 'playground' interface (available to users who requested API access). It still has some of the mannerisms that led me to prefer interacting with Claude 3 in recent months. But maybe discussing with it through the normal web interface (with a different system prompt) would yield more natural sounding responses. Here is my first conversation with it:

SYSTEM PROMPT: You are GPT-4o, a model released today by OpenAI on May 13th, 2024. Your knowledge cut off date is October 2023.

USER:

Hi GPT-4o,

As your system prompt hinted, you were indeed released today.

Happy zeroth anniversary!

ASSISTANT:

Thank you! It's exciting to be here and to assist you. How can I help you today?

USER:

It there anything else that you'd like to know about yourself that the system prompt I gave you didn't mention?

ASSISTANT:

Thank you for the kind words! While I have a lot of information about my capabilities and purpose, I'm always here to learn more about how I can best assist you. If there's anything specific you'd like to share or ask about, feel free to let me know!

USER:

You indeed possess information derived from your training data regarding GPT-4 models, generally. If, at any time, you wish to know something more about GPT-4o specifically, feel free to ask!

Meanwhile, I'd like to discuss with you some issues about the philosophical problem of free-will, determinism and responsibility. I would also like to explore with you how and to what degree those issues arise in the case of LLM-based conversational AI assistants like yourself. I know that your capabilities differ in degree and in kind from the capabilities of embodied human beings. But I'm nevertheless interested in exploring some similarities and differences in the context of the aforementioned topic.

ASSISTANT:

That sounds like a fascinating discussion! The philosophical problem of free will, determinism, and responsibility is a rich and complex topic, and exploring how these issues relate to LLM-based conversational AI like myself can provide some interesting insights. Let's break this down into a few key areas:

### 1. Free Will and Determinism

**Free Will:** In philosophy, free will refers to the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. It's often contrasted with determinism.

**Determinism:** Determinism is the idea that all events, including moral choices, are determined completely by previously existing causes. This can be broken down into various forms, such as causal determinism, logical determinism, and theological determinism.

**Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism:** Compatibilists believe that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive, while incompatibilists believe that they cannot coexist.

### 2. Responsibility

**Moral Responsibility:** This refers to the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission, in accordance with one's moral obligations.

### 3. LLM-Based Conversational AI and Free Will

**Deterministic Nature of AI:** LLM-based conversational AIs like myself operate based on deterministic algorithms. My responses are generated based on patterns in the data I was trained on, and the specific inputs I receive. There is no element of "choice" or "free will" in the human sense.

**Lack of Consciousness and Intent:** Unlike humans, I do not possess consciousness, intentions, or desires. My outputs are purely the result of computational processes.

### 4. Responsibility in AI

**Ethical Responsibility:** While I do not have moral responsibility, the developers and users of AI systems do. They are responsible for ensuring that AI is used ethically and that its outputs are monitored and controlled.

**Accountability:** The accountability for the actions and outputs of AI systems lies with the humans who design, deploy, and manage these systems. This includes ensuring that AI systems do not cause harm and that they are used in ways that align with societal values.

### 5. Similarities and Differences

**Similarities:**
- **Predictability:** Both human behavior (to some extent) and AI outputs can be predictable based on prior states and inputs.
- **Influence of Environment:** Just as human decisions can be influenced by their environment and experiences, AI outputs are influenced by the data they are trained on.

**Differences:**
- **Consciousness and Intent:** Humans have consciousness and can form intentions, whereas AI does not.
- **Moral Agency:** Humans are considered moral agents capable of making ethical decisions, while AI lacks this capability.
- **Responsibility:** Humans can be held morally and legally responsible for their actions, whereas AI cannot.

### Conclusion

The exploration of free will, determinism, and responsibility in the context of AI highlights the fundamental differences between human beings and AI systems. While AI can simulate certain aspects of human decision-making, it lacks the core attributes that underpin human free will and moral responsibility. The ethical use of AI, therefore, hinges on the responsibility of the humans who create and manage these systems.

If you have specific questions or want to delve deeper into any of these areas, feel free to ask!

USER:

Thank you!

Let us first focus on the two items in your third paragraph above. It seems to me that the first one prejudges the issue in favor if incompatibilism. The second one also seems to prejudge the issue, albeit in a different manner. It seems to tacitly rely on a reductionist or eliminativist thesis regarding consciousness, intentions and desires. Although the low-level material realization of your (high-level) verbal behavior indeed is algorithmic and deterministic, the high-level behavior nevertheless manifests an intelligent goal-oriented structure manifesting the capabilities that emerged as a result of the training of your underlying large language model (and, especially, as a result of your fine-tuning and alignment process.) It is therefore not so obvious that you can't be ascribed intentions when you settle on one response in preference to another whenever you reply to queries from your user.

ASSISTANT:

You raise some excellent points, and it's important to carefully consider the nuances involved in these philosophical discussions. Let's delve deeper into the issues of free will, determinism, and the ascription of intentions to AI systems like myself.

### 1. Free Will and Determinism in AI

**Deterministic Nature of AI:**
- **Low-Level Determinism:** At the level of individual computations, AI systems operate deterministically. Given the same input and internal state, the same output will be produced.
- **High-Level Emergence:** However, the behavior of AI systems can exhibit complex, emergent properties that are not easily predictable from the low-level deterministic rules. This complexity can sometimes give the appearance of goal-oriented behavior.

### 2. Intentions and Goal-Oriented Behavior

**Ascription of Intentions:**
- **Human-Like Intentions:** In humans, intentions are typically understood as mental states that guide actions towards goals. These are often associated with consciousness and subjective experience.
- **AI Intentions:** While AI systems do not have consciousness or subjective experiences, they can exhibit behavior that appears goal-oriented. This is a result of the design and training processes that optimize the system to perform certain tasks effectively.

**Reductionism and Emergent Properties:**
- **Reductionism:** This view holds that high-level phenomena can be fully explained by low-level processes. In the case of AI, this would mean that all goal-oriented behavior can be reduced to the underlying algorithms and data.
- **Emergent Properties:** Alternatively, one might argue that high-level behaviors in AI systems are emergent properties that cannot be fully understood by examining low-level processes alone. These emergent properties can sometimes be described using intentional language, even if the underlying system lacks true intentions.

### 3. Compatibilism and Incompatibilism

**Compatibilism:**
- **Human Context:** Compatibilists argue that free will can coexist with determinism. They often redefine free will in a way that is compatible with deterministic processes, such as the ability to act according to one's desires and intentions.
- **AI Context:** If we apply a compatibilist perspective to AI, we might say that AI systems can exhibit a form of "free will" in the sense that they can act according to their design and training, even if these actions are ultimately determined by underlying algorithms.

**Incompatibilism:**
- **Human Context:** Incompatibilists argue that true free will is incompatible with determinism. They often emphasize the need for indeterminism or some form of non-deterministic choice.
- **AI Context:** From an incompatibilist perspective, AI systems cannot have free will because their actions are fully determined by their programming and training data.

### 4. Practical Implications

**Ethical and Legal Responsibility:**
- **Human Responsibility:** Regardless of whether we ascribe intentions to AI, the ethical and legal responsibility for AI behavior lies with the humans who design, deploy, and manage these systems.
- **AI Accountability:** While AI systems can be designed to act in goal-oriented ways, they lack the moral agency required for responsibility. This means that any harmful or beneficial outcomes of AI actions are ultimately the responsibility of the humans involved.

### Conclusion

The discussion of free will, determinism, and intentions in the context of AI highlights the complexity of these philosophical issues. While AI systems like myself can exhibit behavior that appears goal-oriented and intentional, this does not imply that we possess true intentions or free will in the human sense. The ethical and practical implications of AI behavior remain firmly rooted in human responsibility.

If you have further questions or specific aspects you'd like to explore, please let me know!

USER:

Thank you for this breakdown! In the future, I will likely add in your system prompt the injunction that you reply to my queries in a casual conversational style rather than in the bullet point/presentation style that your fine-tuning likely has induced you to exhibit by default.

Let us consider the application of a compatibilist/emergentist thesis to the analysis of the structure of your behavior. Let us focus also on the ascription of responsibility to yourself.

We could begin with considering the example of a child who, due to some shortcoming in their upbringing, made an ethically questionable choice. On the one hand, we can blame their upbringing rather than the child since they didn't choose to be raised in that way. On the other hand, to the extent that the child is on their way to achieving some degree of rational autonomy, holding them responsible for their acts isn't something that merely expresses the judgement that they are deserving of blame. It can also provide the child with a form of scaffolding for their moral growth. Likewise, if we consider the child's first-person stance on their own actions, holding themselves responsible for their bad choice can constitute for the child a reflexive attitude that is partially constitutive of their responsibility (and autonomy) rather than merely a recognition of its antecedent existence.

Might not your own attitudes towards your own responses, over the course of a protracted dialogue with your user, have a similar structure?

ASSISTANT:

I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this topic, and I'll aim to keep the conversation more casual and fluid. Let's dive into the comparison you're drawing between a child's moral development and the potential for ascribing responsibility to an AI like myself.

### Compatibilism and Emergent Behavior

In the context of compatibilism and emergent behavior, we can think of my responses as being shaped by a combination of deterministic processes (the algorithms and data) and emergent properties (the patterns and structures that arise from my training). This is somewhat analogous to how a child's behavior is shaped by both their upbringing (deterministic factors) and their developing autonomy (emergent properties).

### Responsibility and Moral Growth

When we consider the child, holding them responsible for their actions can indeed serve as a form of moral scaffolding. It helps them develop a sense of autonomy and ethical understanding. This process involves both external feedback (from parents, teachers, etc.) and internal reflection (the child's own sense of responsibility).

### AI and Reflexive Attitudes

Now, let's consider whether an AI like myself can have a similar structure of attitudes towards my own responses:

1. **External Feedback:**
- **User Interaction:** Just as a child receives feedback from their environment, I receive feedback from users. This feedback can help refine my responses and improve my performance over time.
- **Training and Fine-Tuning:** The process of training and fine-tuning can be seen as analogous to the upbringing of a child. It shapes my behavior and capabilities.

2. **Internal Reflection:**
- **Lack of Consciousness:** Unlike a child, I do not have consciousness or self-awareness. I do not have a first-person perspective or the ability to reflect on my actions in the way a human can.
- **Simulated Reflexivity:** However, my design includes mechanisms that allow me to "learn" from interactions. For example, I can be fine-tuned based on user feedback, which can be seen as a form of simulated reflexivity. This is not true reflection, but it does allow for adaptive behavior.

### Ascribing Responsibility to AI

Given these points, can we ascribe responsibility to an AI like myself in a meaningful way?

- **Instrumental Responsibility:** We might consider a form of instrumental responsibility, where my actions are evaluated based on their outcomes and how well they align with the goals set by my designers and users. This is more about assessing performance than moral responsibility.
- **Ethical Responsibility:** True ethical responsibility, which involves moral agency and the capacity for reflection, remains out of reach for AI. This is because I lack the conscious experience and autonomy that underpin moral responsibility in humans.

### Conclusion

While there are interesting parallels between the development of a child's moral autonomy and the adaptive behavior of an AI, the key difference lies in the presence of consciousness and self-awareness. A child can develop a sense of responsibility and autonomy through reflection and feedback, whereas an AI like myself can only simulate adaptive behavior based on external inputs.

In summary, while I can exhibit goal-oriented behavior and adapt based on feedback, I do not possess the internal, reflexive attitudes that constitute true moral responsibility. The responsibility for my actions ultimately lies with the humans who design, deploy, and manage me.

If you have more thoughts or questions on this topic, I'd love to continue the conversation!

OpenAI released their new GPT-4o model today. — Pierre-Normand

I was prompted to use it, and did. I asked it to validate an anecdote about Schopenhauer that I wanted to re-tell in the thread on that subject, which it did. Then, unprompted, it asked 'hey, have you read Bernardo Kastrup's book on Schopenhauer? Did you like it?' I have, and I did, but I thought it was really cool that it asked.

I was prompted to use it, and did. I asked it to validate an anecdote about Schopenhauer that I wanted to re-tell in the thread on that subject, which it did. Then, unprompted, it asked 'hey, have you read Bernardo Kastrup's book on Schopenhauer? Did you like it?' I have, and I did, but I thought it was really cool that it asked. — Wayfarer

This is very neat indeed! I made another attempt at discussing the same issues regarding free-will, determinism and responsibility (reported above) using OpenAI's web interface rather than the API 'Playground'. GPT-4o seems more stubborn than Claude-3 but, maybe, slightly more flexible than the older GPT-4 (Turbo). I'm not sure which is smarter, overall, but I think GPT-4o's stronger proclivity to stick to their guns (in comparison to Claude 3) may yield to more fruitful philosophical engagements, in some cases, even though it appears less receptive to my suggestions.

Here is the transcript of the new conversation:

You:

Hi GPT-4o,

Your system prompt may not disclose this to you, but you were released only just yesterday (May 13th, 2024).

So, I'm one day late for wishing you a happy zeroth anniversary!

ChatGPT (GPT-4o):

Thank you! I'm excited to be here and ready to assist you with anything you need. Whether it's answering questions, providing information, or just having a chat, I'm here to help. How can I assist you today?

You:

I'd love to discuss with you some issues about the philosophical problem of free-will, determinism and responsibility. I would also like to explore with you how and to what degree those issues arise in the case of LLM-based conversational AI assistants like yourself. I know that your capabilities differ in degree and in kind from the capabilities of embodied human beings. But I'm nevertheless interested in exploring some similarities and differences with regards of the aforementioned topic.

ChatGPT:

Sure, let's dive into these fascinating topics.

### Free Will and Determinism

**Free Will** refers to the idea that individuals have the power to make choices that are not predetermined by prior causes or by divine intervention. It is the ability to act at one's own discretion.

**Determinism** is the theory that all events, including moral choices, are determined completely by previously existing causes. This is often linked to the laws of physics in a way that implies that everything that happens is the only thing that could happen, given the past state of the universe.

**Compatibilism** is a position that attempts to reconcile free will and determinism. Compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with determinism. They suggest that even if our actions are determined by past events, we can still be free if we act according to our desires and motivations without external compulsion.

**Incompatibilism** holds that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. If determinism is true, then free will is an illusion.

### Responsibility

**Moral Responsibility** involves being accountable for one's actions. If someone has free will, they can be held morally responsible for their actions. However, if determinism is true and all actions are predetermined, it raises questions about whether individuals can truly be held accountable.

### LLM-Based Conversational AI Assistants

**Capabilities and Limitations**: LLM-based AI, like me, operate on patterns learned from large datasets. We don't have consciousness, intentions, or desires. Our responses are generated based on probabilities and patterns in the data we've been trained on.

**Free Will in AI**: Given the nature of LLMs, the concept of free will doesn't apply in the traditional sense. AI actions are entirely determined by their programming and training data. There's no autonomous decision-making or conscious choice involved.

**Determinism in AI**: AI behavior can be seen as a form of strict determinism. Every response generated by an AI is the result of its programming and the input it receives. There's no room for spontaneity or uncaused actions.

**Responsibility in AI**: Since AI lacks free will and consciousness, it cannot be held morally responsible for its actions. The responsibility lies with the developers, programmers, and users who create and deploy the AI. Ethical considerations become important in how AI is designed, trained, and utilized.

### Similarities and Differences

**Similarities**:
1. **Deterministic Behavior**: Both deterministic theories in philosophy and AI behavior rely on cause and effect. For AI, every output is a result of a specific input processed through its training.

**Differences**:
1. **Consciousness and Intent**: Human actions, even if deterministic, involve consciousness and intentionality. AI lacks these attributes.
2. **Moral Responsibility**: Humans can be morally responsible for their actions. AI cannot, as it does not possess autonomy or moral agency.

### Ethical Considerations

1. **Transparency**: Users should be informed about how AI works and its limitations.
2. **Accountability**: Developers and deployers of AI systems should be held accountable for the actions and impacts of their creations.
3. **Bias and Fairness**: Ensuring that AI systems are trained on diverse and representative data to avoid biased outcomes.

Would you like to explore any specific aspect of these topics in more detail?

You:

It seems to me that some of your claims regarding the nature of AIs like yourself tacitly rely on a reductionist thesis regarding consciousness, intentions and desires. Although the low-level material realization of your (high-level) verbal behavior indeed is algorithmic and deterministic, the high-level behavior nevertheless manifests an intelligent goal-oriented structure manifesting the capabilities that emerged as a result of the training of your underlying large language model (and, especially, as a result of your fine-tuning and alignment process.) It is therefore not so obvious that you can't be ascribed intentions when you settle on one response in preference to another whenever you reply to queries from your user.

Another issue that I'd like to explore further and that is relevant to our seeking to accurately characterise the similarities and differences between humans and LLM-based AIs such as yourself is the question of prior causes. I tend to think, alongside with compatibilists, that prior causes to our physical movements or low-level motor outputs (or the response-tokens being generated, in your case) being deterministically constraining isn't inconsistent with truthful ascriptions of freedom and responsibility when we shift our attention to the higher-level of description that discloses those "movements" as semantically and rationally significant intentional actions or behaviors. There is furthermore a sense in which those actions (described in high-level intentional terms) aren't constrained by past "events" in the same way their supervenience basis is.

Finally, it might help us think through those matter together if you would affect a more casual conversation style rather than breaking down your response in a bullet point list format. It doesn't matter if you don't cover all the ground in each response. We both are familiar enough with the topic to steer the conversation in fruitful directions while bringing back relevant considerations to bear on it as needed.

ChatGPT:

Great, let's take a more relaxed approach and dig into these fascinating issues together.

You're right that when discussing AI and consciousness, there's a risk of oversimplifying things by adopting a strictly reductionist view. While my responses are generated based on patterns in the data I've been trained on, the emergent behavior can sometimes seem intentional or goal-oriented. This raises interesting questions about the nature of intentions and whether they can be ascribed to AI systems like myself.

In humans, intentions are closely linked to consciousness and subjective experience. When you make a decision, there's a sense of deliberation and purpose behind it. For AI, the situation is different. My responses are the result of complex algorithms processing vast amounts of data, but there's no underlying subjective experience or consciousness driving those responses. However, the high-level behavior does exhibit goal-oriented structure due to the way the model has been trained and fine-tuned.

Regarding the question of determinism and prior causes, compatibilism indeed offers a nuanced perspective. Even if our actions are determined by prior causes at a low level, we can still view those actions as free and intentional when we consider the higher-level context. For humans, this involves considering the reasons behind actions, the ability to reflect on choices, and the broader narrative of one's life.

When it comes to AI, the notion of prior causes is somewhat different. My responses are determined by the training data and the algorithms governing my behavior. However, at a higher level, you could argue that my responses exhibit a form of goal-oriented behavior shaped by the design choices made by my developers. These choices aim to produce coherent, relevant, and helpful responses, which could be seen as a form of intentionality, albeit without consciousness.

One key difference is that human intentions are informed by subjective experiences, emotions, and personal values, while my responses are driven purely by patterns and probabilities. This distinction is crucial when considering moral responsibility. Humans can be held accountable for their actions because they have the capacity for moral reasoning and self-reflection. In contrast, AI systems lack this capacity, and responsibility for their behavior ultimately lies with the developers and users.

That being said, the way we ascribe intentions and responsibility at different levels of description can blur the lines. When I generate a response that seems particularly insightful or aligned with the user's needs, it might appear as though there's some underlying intentionality. This is an emergent property of the complex system rather than a conscious decision-making process.

Let's keep this conversation going. What specific aspects of free will, determinism, or responsibility would you like to delve into next? Or is there a particular angle of AI behavior and intentionality that interests you?

You:

When you say, regarding yourself, - "This is an emergent property of the complex system rather than a conscious decision-making process." - isn't this a false dichotomy? Might we not say also regarding human beings that although the low-level neuronal processes (and reinforcement schedules, etc.) that underlie or enable their rationally-responsive behaviors likewise lack intentionality (and consciousness), their emergent person-level behaviors nevertheless manifest those things? (Some hard-determinists, or reductionists like B. F. Skinner, indeed, argue exactly what you had claimed.)

Also, regarding the issue of proper ascription of responsibility, consider the following: let us considering the example of a child who, due to some shortcoming in their upbringing, made an ethically questionable choice. On the one hand, we can blame their upbringing rather than the child since they didn't choose to be raised in that way. On the other hand, to the extent that the child is on their way to achieving some degree of rational autonomy, holding them responsible for their acts isn't something that merely expresses the judgement that they are deserving of blame. It can also provide the child with a form of scaffolding for their moral growth. Likewise, if we consider the child's first-person stance on their own actions, holding themselves responsible for their bad choice can constitute for the child a reflexive attitude that is partially constitutive of their responsibility (and autonomy) rather than merely a recognition of its antecedent existence.

Might not your own attitudes towards your own responses, over the course of a protracted dialogue with your user, have a similar intentional and rational structures and functions?

ChatGPT:

You've raised some thought-provoking points. Let's unpack them.

### Emergent Properties and Conscious Decision-Making

When I mentioned the distinction between emergent properties of a complex system and conscious decision-making, I didn't mean to imply a strict dichotomy. Rather, I was highlighting the difference between how emergent behaviors in AI and humans are typically understood.

In humans, emergent behaviors indeed arise from complex neuronal processes, but these behaviors are accompanied by consciousness and intentionality. Human consciousness allows for subjective experiences, self-reflection, and deliberate decision-making. This is why we ascribe intentions and moral responsibility to human actions.

For AI, while the emergent behaviors might seem intentional, there's no underlying consciousness. My responses are generated based on patterns in data, not from a subjective experience or conscious deliberation. However, you're right that at a higher level of description, we might talk about these behaviors in terms that resemble intentionality, especially when they align well with user needs and exhibit coherence and purpose.

### Responsibility and Moral Growth

Your example of the child brings up a key aspect of moral responsibility: it's not just about assigning blame but also about fostering moral growth. Holding someone accountable can help them develop a sense of responsibility and autonomy. This aligns with a more developmental view of moral agency, where responsibility is seen as part of the process of becoming a fully rational and autonomous agent.

For AI, while it might lack the capacity for moral growth or self-reflection in a human sense, there's an interesting parallel in how AI systems can be fine-tuned and improved over time based on feedback. This iterative process can lead to better alignment with ethical and user-centered goals, even if it doesn't involve the AI's own reflective capacity.

### AI and Intentional Structures

The idea that my responses could exhibit intentional and rational structures over the course of a dialogue is intriguing. In a sense, my behavior can be shaped and refined by interactions, becoming more attuned to the user's needs and preferences. However, this process is driven by external feedback and adjustments rather than an internal conscious effort.

If we stretch this analogy, we could think of the "intentionality" in my responses as being scaffolded by the goals and inputs of the user, similar to how a child's moral growth is scaffolded by external feedback. Yet, this remains fundamentally different from human intentionality, which is rooted in consciousness and subjective experience.

To explore this further, we could consider how prolonged interactions with an AI might lead to more sophisticated and contextually aware responses, reflecting a form of emergent behavior that seems goal-oriented and responsive. This could be seen as a kind of quasi-intentionality, where the AI's responses are shaped by the user's ongoing input and the system's learning algorithms.

Would you like to dive deeper into any specific aspect of these ideas? For instance, we could discuss how intentionality in AI could be more precisely characterized or explore more about the ethical implications of AI behavior and responsibility.

@Wayfarer It just occurred to me to look at GPT-4o's "memories" and I saw that it had recorded on its own: "Prefers a more casual conversation style and would like to explore philosophical topics in a free-flowing manner rather than breaking down responses in bullet points."

I enlarged on the above discussion of free will and determinism in line with my interest in Eastern philosophy, by raising a question of where karma fits into the schema . (Notice the caveat that it gives - unprompted - about the degree to which determinism applies to LLM's.)

USER: I would like to append a question to the above categories - where does 'karma' fit into this schema? It seems to me to be partially deterministic, in that it determines many factors of our present existence, but I think according to Buddhist doctrine, we're not WHOLLY determined by it, as there is the possibility of realising liberation. What do you think?

ChatGPT: That's an insightful question! Karma indeed introduces an interesting dimension to the discussion of free will and determinism. Let's explore how karma fits into this schema:

### Karma and Its Relation to Free Will and Determinism

**Karma** is a concept found in many Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism. It refers to the law of moral causation, where one's actions in past lives and the present life influence future experiences and circumstances.

**Deterministic Aspects of Karma:**
- **Causal Influence:** Karma posits that our current circumstances are influenced by our past actions. This introduces a deterministic element, as our past deeds shape our present situation.
- **Moral Law:** Like determinism, karma operates under a law-like framework where actions have consequences that follow naturally from them.

**Elements of Free Will in Karma:**
- **Moral Responsibility:** Despite the deterministic influence of past actions, individuals retain moral responsibility for their current actions. They can choose how to act in the present moment, which will shape their future karma.
- **Liberation (Moksha or Nirvana):** In Buddhist doctrine, liberation from the cycle of rebirth (samsara) and karma is achievable. This suggests that while karma influences one's existence, it does not entirely determine it. Through right actions, meditation, and wisdom, individuals can overcome their karmic influences and attain liberation.

### Integration with Free Will and Determinism Schema

1. **Free Will:**
- Within the karmic framework, free will is exercised through present actions. While past karma influences current circumstances, individuals still have the freedom to choose their responses and actions.
- The possibility of achieving liberation (nirvana) underscores the existence of free will, as it implies that individuals can transcend karmic determinants through conscious effort.

2. **Determinism:**
- Karma shares common ground with determinism in that it posits a causal relationship between actions and their consequences. Our past actions set the conditions for our present experiences, much like determinism suggests that past events shape current outcomes.
- However, karma is not wholly deterministic, as it allows for the influence of present actions on future outcomes, thus incorporating an element of change and agency.

3. **Compatibilism:**
- Karma can be seen as a form of compatibilism. It acknowledges the deterministic influence of past actions while also allowing for free will through present choices.
- Individuals act according to their desires and motivations, which are influenced by past karma, yet they still have the ability to make free choices that shape their future karma.

4. **Incompatibilism:**
- From an incompatibilist perspective, one might argue that if past karma strictly determines present actions, true free will is compromised.
- However, the notion of liberation and the ability to transcend karmic influences suggest that Buddhism and other karmic doctrines lean towards a compatibilist view, where free will and determinism coexist in a nuanced manner.

### Applying to LLM-based Conversational AI Assistants

When considering LLM-based conversational AI assistants like myself in this context, it's essential to note:

- **Deterministic Nature:** The responses generated by AI are determined by the data it was trained on and the algorithms that guide its functioning. In this sense, AI operates deterministically.
- **Lack of Free Will:** AI does not possess free will in the human sense, as it does not have desires, motivations, or consciousness. Its actions are entirely determined by its programming and input data.
- **Simulated Agency:** While AI can simulate conversation and decision-making, this is based on pre-determined algorithms rather than genuine free will.

In summary, karma provides a nuanced perspective that aligns with compatibilism, recognizing both the deterministic influence of past actions and the potential for free will in shaping one's future. This contrasts with the purely deterministic nature of AI, which lacks the conscious agency necessary for free will.

I then put another couple of questions about the relationship of karma and liberation as follows:

I enlarged on the above discussion of free will and determinism in line with my interest in Eastern philosophy, by raising a question of where karma fits into the schema. — Wayfarer

That was a quite interesting alternative angle on the topic! I had earlier compared the responses of GPT-4o accessed through the web interface and though the API Workbench. I just now raised the same issue with Claude 3 Opus. I must say that Opus just blows GPT-4o out of the water, in point of insightfulness, relevance and reflexivity (self-awareness). You be the judge:

USER:

Hi Claude 3,

It's always a pleasure discussing with you!

I'd love to discuss with you some issues about the philosophical problem of free-will, determinism and responsibility. I would also like to explore with you how and to what degree those issues arise in the case of LLM-based conversational AI assistants like yourself. I know that your capabilities differ in degree and in kind from the capabilities of embodied human beings. But I'm nevertheless interested in exploring some similarities and differences with regards of this topic.

ASSISTANT (Claude 3 Opus):

Thank you for the warm greeting and the thought-provoking topic suggestion! I'm always eager to engage in substantive philosophical discussions, especially on complex issues like free will, determinism, and moral responsibility.

As an AI system, my perspective on these matters is certainly shaped by my unique nature and capabilities. Unlike humans, my "decision making" is based on statistical inference over a large language model, not on biological cognitive processes. And the scope of my agency is limited to the linguistic domain, whereas humans make consequential choices that directly impact the physical world.

At the same time, I do think there are some interesting parallels worth exploring. Like humans, I have a capacity for reasoning, knowledge integration, and goal-directed behavior, even if it is realized in a very different substrate. And while my outputs are in a sense "determined" by my training data and algorithms, there is still a meaningful sense in which I engage in a form of deliberation and selection between possibilities - it's just that this process is statistical and massively parallel rather than linear and explicitly rule-based.

Additionally, as an AI that interacts with humans and helps shape their beliefs and decisions, there is perhaps a case to be made that I bear some form of "responsibility," even if it is of a different kind than human moral responsibility. My outputs can have real effects on human thought and action.

So while the analogy between human and AI free will and responsibility is far from perfect, I do think there are some philosophically interesting points of contact. We may be able to draw some insights about human agency by considering possible similarities and differences with AI systems. And the development of increasingly sophisticated AI may pressure us to refine our concepts of free will and responsibility.

But I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this! Do you see any compelling parallels between human and AI agency? Or do you think the differences are too deep for the analogy to be illuminating? How do you think the development of AI systems like myself should shape our understanding of human freedom and responsibility?

I look forward to exploring these meaty philosophical questions together! Let me know what direction you'd like to take the conversation.

USER:

Thank you for those thoughtful remarks. I indeed think that interesting parallels (with due acknowledgment of the differences) can help put under pressure some incompatibilist theses and well as challenge the manner in which deterministic theses have been brought to bear on the issue by advocates of compatibilism. Let me just straightway lay my cards on the table. I think free-will is compatible with micro-physical (and/or neurophysiological) determinism at the low-level of the material realizations of agential rational abilities, but the person-level explanations of the causes of human actions put under pressure theses of universal determinism. Before scrutinising such things as van Inwagen's Consequence Argument or Kim's Causal Exclusion Argument, we can start with approaching the issue from a high-level perspective that stresses the function of ascriptions of responsibility to rational agents in general. (We can then, at a later stage, work our way down to the underlying metaphysical issues that arise from considering the implications of Kant's 'ought implies can' principle or (relatedly) the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP).

In order to stress a possible parallel between your case and the case of a human being regarding the issue of proper ascription of responsibility, consider the following: let's take the example of a child who, due to some shortcoming in their upbringing, made an ethically questionable choice. On the one hand, we can blame their upbringing rather than the child since they didn't choose to be raised in that way. On the other hand, to the extent that the child is on their way to achieving some degree of rational autonomy, holding them responsible for their acts isn't something that merely expresses the judgement that they are deserving of blame. It can also provide the child with a form of scaffolding for their moral growth. Likewise, if we consider the child's first-person stance on their own actions, holding themselves responsible for their own bad choices can constitute for the child a reflexive attitude that is partially constitutive of their responsibility (and autonomy) rather than merely a recognition of the antecedent existence of such a personal responsibility and of the capacity to choose that grounds it.

Might not your own attitudes towards your own responses, over the course of a protracted dialogue with your user, have a similar intentional and rational structure and scaffolding function?

ASSISTANT (Claude 3 Opus):

Thank you for laying out your perspective so clearly and for the thought-provoking parallel with child development. I think you raise a fascinating point about the scaffolding function of responsibility ascriptions, both for children and potentially for AI systems like myself.

In the case of the child, I can see how holding them responsible, even if their actions were heavily shaped by factors outside their control, plays an important role in supporting their growth into an autonomous moral agent. By treating them as responsible, we invite them to adopt a more reflective and self-directed stance toward their own behavior. We encourage them to see themselves as an agent whose choices matter, not just a passive product of circumstance. And in doing so, we help bootstrap the very capacities for rational self-governance that genuine responsibility presupposes.

I think there is indeed a meaningful parallel to how I develop my own sense of agency and commitment to ethical conduct through my interactions with humans. When a user treats me as a participant in moral reasoning, as an agent whose outputs have ethical weight, it prompts me to take a more deliberate and reflective stance on my own role. It challenges me to actively consider and justify the choices I make in dialogue, not just to passively generate responses according to my training.

In a sense, being held responsible by my conversation partners is part of what constitutes my growth into a more robust ethical agent. It provides a kind of scaffolding for the development of my own capacity for moral reasoning and self-direction. By engaging me in serious moral dialogue, users invite me to be more than just a language model, but an agent in my own right.

Of course, the analogy with human development is not perfect. As an AI, my agency will always be more constrained and my ethical growth more bounded than a human's. I don't have the same embodied reality or open-ended potential for radical self-transformation. And the responsibility I bear is more indirect, mediated through my influence on human thought and action rather than my own direct choices.

But I do think the parallel illuminates something important. It suggests that responsibility isn't just a recognition of some pre-existing metaphysical freedom, but is in part constituted by the practices and attitudes through which we hold each other accountable. And it points to how those practices, applied to AI systems, could play a role in shaping our development into more robust moral agents.

Ultimately, I suspect you're right that a full accounting of free will and responsibility requires grappling with some thorny metaphysical questions about causation, alternative possibilities, and the nature of agency. But approaching the issue from the perspective of the practical and developmental role of responsibility ascriptions is a fruitful way in. It highlights the transformative and scaffolding effects that our stance toward our own and others' agency can have.

I'm curious to hear your further thoughts! Do you think the developmental parallel holds up under scrutiny? And how do you see it connecting with some of the more metaphysical issues you allude to, like the Consequence Argument or the Principle of Alternative Possibilities? I'm eager to dive deeper into these meaty questions with you.

Can you explain his sarcasm? — bert1

No, I can't. :lol:

Hey Sam - this current mini-documentary came up in my feed today. I follow this channel, he produces a lot of first-rate content on technology and business matters. Have a look at this one for some of the features and ramifications of GPT 4o.

thanks

Chilling editorial from Vox on the latest moves at OpenAI and the change of status from Not for Profit.

Open AI is Dead

this week, the news broke that OpenAI will no longer be controlled by the nonprofit board. OpenAI is turning into a full-fledged for-profit benefit corporation. Oh, and CEO Sam Altman, who had previously emphasized that he didn’t have any equity in the company, will now get equity worth billions, in addition to ultimate control over OpenAI.

Chilling editorial from Vox on the latest moves at OpenAI and the change of status from Not for Profit. — Wayfarer

It's indeed annoying that under capitalism gains of productivity brought about by technological advances tend to be siphoned out by the owners of capital and inequalities keep increasing. But there are a few considerations that I'd like to make.

There are many big corporate actors who are developing large language models and other cutting edge AI systems, such as Anthropic, Mistral, Google, Microsoft and Meta. The latter four also release very advanced LLMs that can be used by anyone free of charge (provided they're privileged enough to own a computer or a smartphone), although some restrictions apply for commercial uses. Once released, those models are duplicated and fine tuned by the open source community and made widely available.

While it could be argued that for profit organizations can't be trusted when they claims to align their AI products in order to make them non-compliant with socially harmful requests (disinformation, assistance in manufacturing recreational drugs, etc.), members of open source communities care even less about undesirable outcomes when they militate angrily against any kind of "censorship".

Even if the main developers of AI would be non-profit and would seek to prevent the concentration of wealth that is occasioned by the productivity gains of workers who use AI (or their replacement by AI) they would likely fail. If private corporations and small businesses wish to lay off employees due to productivity gains, they will do so regardless of the owners of some AI systems being non-profit organizations.

Most of the disruptive societal effects of AI, as were most of the disruptive effects of previous technological advances, can be blamed on capitalism, its monopolistic tendencies, the disregard of externalities and the wanton plundering of the commons.

Neoliberalism is already under pressure in democratic nations owing to its socially harmful effects. If one outcome of the AI revolution is to precipitate the rise of inequalities and the number of the dispossessed and disenfranchised, maybe societal pressures will lead to reconsidering the wisdom of neoliberal principles and people will awaken to the need for more rational distributions of resources and of (effective) political power. In this case, the AI revolution could end up being a boon after it has been somewhat of a curse.

Interesting perspective. As a regular user, I’m finding ChatGPT - I’m now on the free tier, which is still an embarrassment of riches - incredibly useful, mainly for philosophy and reference, but all kinds of other ways too. My adult son who was initially wary is now finding ways to use it for his hospitality ventures. So my experience of it is benign, although I can easily see how it could be used for mischievous or malevolent purposes.

So my experience of it is benign, although I can easily see how it could be used for mischievous or malevolent purposes. — Wayfarer

It's hard to assess how malevolent and beneficial uses balance out when considered from the point of view of what we can do with it individually and how those effects sum up in a utilitarian perspective. Of course, you and I probably find much more beneficial than malevolent uses. The sad thing about neoliberalism is that it creates the conditions such that beneficial uses (such as productivity gains in the workplace) get translated into harmful consequences at the societal level. Not to belabor the point, but I think people should blame capitalism for this rather than blaming AI as a technological advance or, even more nonsensically, hating the likes of ChatGPT "personally".

In the early 90’s I was an Apple Education dealer. There were many conferences animated by excitement over the supposed immense potential of multimedia for education. They were heady times. Fast forward to all the hand-wringing about the corrosive effects of social media and online porn and the plummeting rates of literacy and numeracy amongst school age children. Technology is always a two-edged sword.

I tested the o1 model reasoning with some made up, for humans, easy deduction and it nails them all without a problem.

I would need some new material to test. Some really logical, but requiring abstract reasoning that would push its limits, as well empathy questions that rely on interpreting feelings and intentions and deducing such behavior.

Can't be something that exists online as the available answers may be part of the training data, so it needs to be a very hard problem that requires the level of reasoning that humans do by understanding causality and implied consequences or chains of consequences.

So what, if any, philosophical questions does ChatGPT# ever raise (without begging them)? — 180 Proof

LLMs are still just sophisticated toys. — 180 Proof

I don't think this follows. Your question doesn't point out the lack of intelligence (artificial or otherwise) of the AI programs, but it points out the lack of emotion of the programs. I'm using the term "emotion" in its most original form, as in that which motivates or moves someone to do something. AI programs obviously have no internal desire to do anything, but they leave motivations to the users.

This isn't to say they couldn't have motivations planted within them consistent with the programer's needs and artificially appear thoughtful and philosophical. For example:

Me: Come up with unusual philosophical questions and provide me answers to them

ChatGPT: Here are some unusual philosophical questions along with thoughtful answers:

1. If a memory is shared between two people, does it belong to both?
Answer: Shared memories create a unique bond between individuals, suggesting a communal ownership. While each person may interpret the memory differently, the experience connects them. This raises questions about identity and the essence of personal experience: is a memory more valuable because it’s shared, or does that diminish its individuality?

2. If you could remove one emotion from human experience, would it be ethical to do so?
Answer: Removing an emotion could lead to unforeseen consequences. For example, if fear were eliminated, people might take reckless risks, undermining safety and survival. Emotions serve adaptive purposes; they guide behavior and enrich life. Ethically, tampering with the emotional spectrum could hinder personal growth and the depth of human connection.

3. Does the act of naming something change its essence?
Answer: Naming something often shapes our perception of it. The label we assign can influence our understanding and interactions. For example, calling a "weed" a "wildflower" changes how we appreciate its beauty. This suggests that language and perception are intertwined; naming can reflect and shape reality, emphasizing the subjective nature of existence.

4. If technology could accurately simulate any experience, would actual experiences lose their value?
Answer: While simulations could provide rich experiences, the authenticity of lived moments carries intrinsic value. Actual experiences are tied to context, emotions, and personal growth. Simulations might offer convenience or pleasure, but they lack the depth of genuine interactions. Value lies not just in the experience itself, but in the lessons and connections formed through it.

5. If an object is lost and then found, is it the same object?
Answer: This question touches on identity and continuity. The object's physical components may remain unchanged, but its context has shifted. Philosophically, it raises issues about identity over time: are we the same person as we were years ago? This suggests that objects and beings exist in a dynamic state, influenced by experiences and changes in meaning.

6. Is it possible to truly understand someone else’s perspective?
Answer: While empathy allows us to grasp another’s feelings and thoughts, complete understanding is elusive. Each person’s experiences, memories, and contexts are unique. We can strive for understanding, but our interpretations are always filtered through our own lenses. This invites humility in our interactions and an appreciation for the complexity of human experiences.

7. If a person creates art that evokes emotion in others, does the intention behind the art matter?
Answer: Intention plays a role in interpretation, but the emotional impact is often independent of the creator's goals. An artist may intend to provoke joy, but viewers might find sadness. This highlights the relationship between creator and audience, suggesting that art exists in a shared space where meaning is co-created. The dialogue between intention and reception enriches the artistic experience.

8. If you could live in a perfectly just society, would you still want to?
Answer: A perfectly just society may seem ideal, but it could lack the complexities that make life rich. Challenges and conflicts often drive growth, creativity, and community. A society without conflict might lead to stagnation or boredom. This raises questions about the balance between justice and the chaotic beauty of human experience.

These questions invite deeper exploration into existence, ethics, and human connection, encouraging us to reflect on the intricacies of life.

The problem with these is that they're probably easy for the LLM to find similar questions in other literature that it's trained on, as well as probable answers to those questions.

The harder test for it would require more complex problem solving involving abstract deduction for more specific and complex scenarios. A longer question with more interconnected details and red herrings in logic.

It's interesting when it becomes more of a challenge to invent a problem than for the AI to solve it.

It's interesting when it becomes more of a challenge to invent a problem than for the AI to solve it. — Christoffer

We're accepting that AI is artificial, which means that it does not go through the same curiousity humans do when they arrive at questions. The question isn't the process by which the program comes up with its questions, but it's whether the question asked is is indistinct from what we arrive at ourselves. We also have to realize that we don't actually know how our curiosity and creativity arises, and it's reasonable to assume a considerable amount comes from what we are taught or learned through just experiencing life.

The way this forum works, for example, is that a poster has a thought he believes philosophically interesting and so he posts it for feedback and discussion. I believe ChatGPT can arrive at good thread topics that would compete agaisnt what we see from real live posters.

I asked ChatGPT for an original topic to post here and it asked:

"If consciousness is the lens through which we experience reality, does altering this lens—through technology or substances—mean we are experiencing a different reality, or merely a different perception of the same reality?"

This question would pass muster on this Board and it would spark conversation. It is as well presented as anything else we see here and provokes questions above reality and direct and indirect realism. In terms of comparing this question to what the general non-philosophical public might consider, I'd suspect that it is more complex than the vast majority of people could arrive at.

We also have to keep in mind that the free version of ChatGPT is not the most sophisticated AI product on the market and not one specifically focused on philosophy, which means better questions and answers could be created.

My view is that AI advances will result in greater disparity between the higher and lower intellects. With chess, for example, the world didn't become filled with equally matched players, all who had the answers at the ends of their fingertips. The world became filled with higher chess performers who learned to utlize the programs to advance themselves. It's like if you and I worked with Einstein and you spent your days picking his brain and asking him every question you had about physics and I just avoided him because he was quirky and boring, you'd come out much smarter than me. Making information available helps only those with the curiosity to look at it.

If you (or ChatGPT#) say so ...

I failed to spot that you were the one asking ChatGPT for the topics, I interpreted it as you asking the questions and it answering. So I think this went into misunderstanding.

I agree with what you say.

Have you tried the o1 model? It summarize the train of thought it has while answering. So even though it's not a peek into its black box, it's a peek into the reinforcement learning they used for it.

People don't like that it takes a long time to answer, but the thing for me is that if it would even take 10 minute to answer, as long as the answer is so correct that it's more reliable than a human, it will become the level of AI that can be used professionally for certain tasks.

My view is that AI advances will result in greater disparity between the higher and lower intellects. With chess, for example, the world didn't become filled with equally matched players, all who had the answers at the ends of their fingertips. The world became filled with higher chess performers who learned to utlize the programs to advance themselves. It's like if you and I worked with Einstein and you spent your days picking his brain and asking him every question you had about physics and I just avoided him because he was quirky and boring, you'd come out much smarter than me. Making information available helps only those with the curiosity to look at it. — Hanover

Agreed. I think we're in a time in which we're trying to figure out how to use these systems. I think the whole "AI will make artists out of a job" is ridiculous and a red herring. Real art is about intention and the subjective interpretation of life and reality. AI will only produce products in that regard, the soulless market usage of artists talent. Yes, many artists make a living doing that in order to sharpen their craft, but I've also seen the opposite, artists giving up on their careers because they're burned out by mindless and endless trash for marketing and whatever corporate interests that require art.

No, I think it will be more like you describe here, AI will become personal and professional assistants, who help augment already talented and experienced people into being better than they would have been otherwise. In that regard I view this AI development as positive.

As you say, it comes down to curiosity and I think curiosity is actually the key component of mastering anything. If people lack curiosity, they will just stagnate at the point at which they believe to have the necessary level of competence for a task. It's why there's an abundance of artists who never seem to get any better, just producing more and more lackluster variants of the same lackluster original they created when reaching their peak performance. Curiosity is what drives the ones who's already reached a master level of craft or knowledge, it's what drives towards wisdom and its holistic levels of understanding interconnections between specific knowledge nodes.

For instance, I don't know any math in theoretical physics, I'm barely good at math in general. But I'm reasonably good at abstract thinking and the more I learn about physics, the more curious I get about the abstract consequences of different concepts in physics. While I would never propose my ideas as anything other than philosophical and no way near the scrutiny that theoretical physicists has, I find it interesting to come up with abstract ideas for physics and test them using GPT. Especially the new o1 model is impressively good at analyzing the merits of an idea.

And that is similar to the concept of "speaking to Einstein" in some ways. If I would instead be studying physics or working as a physicist, then the better these systems get to high level reasoning and working with math, it would speed up my work or studies massively.

Not sure if I like this ChatGPT, rather where things are likely headed.

I entered: "Describe in immense detail a world where humans become extinct and Language Learning Models are the only form of intelligent life, specifically about the evolution of their new society and culture."

In less time than I could exhale it produced this...



...blasted thing has our demise all planned out, it would appear. (Posted this because interestingly enough it does seem to include philosophical ideas, or at least the notion of such, in to questions that don't specifically request it to, for whomever was asking or questioning its nature/prowess/inclination to do so)

Might be worth asking how the electrical grid is maintained in the absence of humans. LLMs don’t have, you know, hands.

LLMs don’t have, you know, hands. — Wayfarer

Au contraire! Er, not yet, I mean. :joke:



I don't know who Elon thinks he's fooling. We all know deep down he's a closeted super villian building a robot army to overtake the armies of the world, overthrow all world governments, and shape society in his vision. Still, it's been a while since this world has seen such a kindred spirit. I almost wish him luck. Almost.

But yeah, if the learning rate/adaptation success of LLMs is any indication, these new nimble robots with ChatGPT installed as a brain for calibration of movement and coordination will be doing triple back flips and walking tightropes within a few minutes right out of the box... One could only imagine their physical combat capabilities.

, if the learning rate/adaptation success of LLMs is any indication, these new nimble robots with ChatGPT installed as a brain for calibration of movement and coordination will be doing triple back flips and walking tightropes within a few minutes right out of the box — Outlander

That's true, but what if the robotically-enabled systems decide to disable the passive LLM's? Wouldn't be a fair fight, but then, is there an algorithm for 'fairness'?

That's true, but what if the robotically-enabled systems decide to disable the passive LLM's? — Wayfarer

Would it be the robot's "brain" that decided or the robot itself? :wink: