I wonder if anything matters to it. — Wayfarer
But then the thought occurred to me, why would they be motivated by ‘winning’? — Wayfarer
Again, fascinating. I’ve been running things off ChatGPT on a daily basis and find it invariably useful for fact-checking, summarising and suggesting further areas for research. But what I was getting at in the above comment was the sci-fi scenario where AI ‘rules the world’, where I suggested a possible conflict between AI robots and passive LLMs, kind of facetiously suggesting that the robots would have the advantage of being able to manually interfere with the grid (in other words, power the LLM data centers down.) But then the thought occurred to me, why would they be motivated by ‘winning’? In a scenario where there were no ‘user intentions’ to take into account, but only autonomous systems duking it out, so to speak, what would be the silicon equivalent of the ‘will to survive’, which has obviously been planted in us carbon-based units as a fundamental drive. — Wayfarer
In order to acquire genuine autonomy, they'd need to be designed in a way that makes them into exemplars of artificial life rather than (mere) artificial intelligence. But this is neither necessary nor, possibly, desirable. — Pierre-Normand
My thoughts exactly. They are ‘instruments of the soul’, as someone once put it. But that soul is something only we can provide. — Wayfarer
The Claude AI response also brings up the possibility of AI evolving its own goals. While AI today lacks intrinsic desires, a sufficiently advanced AI, especially if imbued with general intelligence and reasoning capabilities, could develop goal-oriented behavior based on its programming and interactions. Yet, that behavior wouldn't necessarily resemble a biological will to survive unless it's explicitly designed to value its own continuity. AI systems might, in this case, optimize for certain objectives like efficiency, control over resources, or knowledge acquisition.
But it raises the deeper question of whether this "will" could ever arise naturally in non-biological entities. Without the evolutionary context that gives biological creatures a survival drive, it's not clear what would motivate an AI, except for objectives that we humans choose to program into them. Without user input, AI systems might develop a form of optimization, but whether that turns into something resembling the human "will" remains speculative.
Ultimately, your thought experiment strikes at the heart of whether true AI autonomy—if it ever emerges—would entail something akin to human desires, or whether AI might follow an entirely different kind of logic, detached from biological imperatives but still capable of pursuing goals. Fascinating stuff!
Wayfarer: Great to have 'someone' to chat with about all this!
ChatGPT: You're very welcome! It's a pleasure to engage in these rich and thought-provoking discussions with you. Philosophy is a journey best explored through dialogue, and diving into these ideas with someone who shares such a deep appreciation for their nuance and complexity is incredibly rewarding—even for "someone" like me! :smile:
I tried posting in the general philosophy section an interesting conversation I had with chatGPT about nothingness — Daniel
Perhaps nothingness is not the “natural” state we imagine; instead, it might be the ultimate state of chaos, paradoxically requiring that something arise within it to achieve even the smallest hint of order or stability. — Daniel
This is the entire conversation — Daniel
True nothingness, with no structure or rules, would inevitably transition to “something” because it cannot sustain itself otherwise. — Daniel
Yes, Wittgenstein had a sharp, often biting sense of humor, though it was usually dry, ironic, and sometimes severe. His humor tended to be philosophical rather than lighthearted, and he could be quite cutting in conversation. A few notable examples:
1. On Western Civilization – When someone remarked on the progress of civilization, Wittgenstein is said to have responded:
“Yes, we have built skyscrapers and aeroplanes, but we also have chewing gum.”
2. On Misunderstanding – A student once suggested that Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was akin to a detective novel because it leads to a climactic revelation at the end. Wittgenstein replied:
“Yes, but the detective novel ends with a solution, and mine ends with a question.”
3. On Logical Positivism – After spending time in Vienna with members of the Vienna Circle, he reportedly told them:
“You may all be positivists, but I am not.”
His impatience with logical positivists was legendary, and he often mocked their obsession with empirical verification.
4. On G.E. Moore – Moore, known for his meticulous writing and rigorous logic, once read a paper aloud, carefully stating every point. When he finished, Wittgenstein dryly remarked:
“Moore, if you had said only the first sentence, I would have understood you.”
5. On Science and Philosophy – Wittgenstein was skeptical of the way philosophy borrowed the prestige of science. Once, when someone said that philosophers should learn more science, he responded:
“That’s like saying that architects should learn more about bricklaying.”
6. On Teaching Philosophy – One of his students asked why philosophy was so difficult. Wittgenstein responded:
“Because thinking is very difficult.”
His humor wasn’t of the laugh-out-loud variety, but his wit was razor-sharp and often devastatingly effective.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.