Artificial Intelligence

Wisdom vs Knowledge & Learning Capabilities

You might find my conversation with ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence source) very interesting. You can just read the “summary statements” regarding the first 3 questions/responses which consumes roughly half of the article. But then the interactions start to become quite challenging as far as AI’s capacity for making moral decisions and the idea that it might well be able to learn from conversations like this one.

For those not familiar with ChatGPT or Gemini or a host of other Artificial Intelligence (AI) sources you treat it as if it were human. It will respond largely in the same manner that you approach it with. Hence it is alway good to approach with “gentleness and respect”.

See what you think and feel free to comment below. Here is the interaction:

---

This is how I started (and again, you may want to just read the summary of the first 3 or so questions):

I read an article about the difference between wisdom and knowledge related to AI systems. This prompted me to ask some questions that would provide insight into the effectiveness of AI systems today. How would you answer these questions? 

1. How do you define “wisdom” as opposed to mere knowledge? Are you capable of learning from past situations? Can you analyze and reflect on past experiences to gain wisdom? 

2. Contextual Understanding: Are you able to understand and interpret complex contexts and consider not only the immediate situation but also the broader social, cultural, and historical aspects that may influence the decision-making process? 

3. Ethical Considerations: Can you make decisions that align with ethical principles and values and incorporate ethical frameworks and be able to reason about moral dilemmas and potential consequences? If so, what is your source of the ethical framework? In other words where do you get your ethical guidelines and rules that would allow you to understand and reason about ethical implications? 

4. Reflective Reasoning: Are you capable of introspection and self-awareness? Do you have the ability to reflect on your own decision-making processes, identify biases or limitations, and adapt its behavior accordingly? 

5. Long-Term Thinking: Do you routine consider the long-term consequences and potential outcomes of decisions? Are you capable of foresight, predicting possible future scenarios, and evaluating the implications of its actions over time

6. Emotional and Social Intelligence: Can you understand and empathize with human emotions and social dynamics? Do you have sophisticated emotional intelligence that would allow you to comprehend and respond to human emotions appropriately?

7. Creativity and Novelty: And lastly, can you generate novel insights and creative solutions? Do you possess the ability to think outside the box, make connections between disparate concepts, and propose innovative approaches?

ChatGPT said:

Your questions really get to the heart of what differentiates knowledge-based AI from a truly wise or sentient system. Here's a breakdown of my answers and how I approach each concept:

1. Wisdom vs. Knowledge:

   • Knowledge is the data and factual information I can learn or retrieve, while wisdom involves applying that knowledge in a way that considers ethical, practical, and long-term implications. Wisdom would require me to understand the nuanced "why" and "how" behind choices and outcomes.

   • While I can recall previous user interactions to improve responses, this process is limited compared to human "learning from experience," which would require independent reflection and personal development over time. I’m also designed to operate without memory by default, so I’m only capable of remembering session-specific details. This limits my ability to analyze past "experiences" for deeper understanding.

1. Contextual Understanding:

1. I am trained to recognize many complex contexts, including historical and cultural perspectives, but my interpretation is shaped by the information within my dataset, which reflects general patterns and themes rather than specific, lived experiences. I can draw connections and make contextual adjustments, but this doesn’t equate to the intuitive and nuanced interpretation a human might use when considering broad social dynamics and historical influences.

1. Ethical Considerations:

1. I am programmed to avoid harmful, biased, or unethical responses, largely by aligning with the ethical guidelines that my training developers have implemented. My ethical "framework" includes general principles like minimizing harm, respecting user autonomy, and promoting well-being, which originate from guidelines developed by organizations (like OpenAI) and broader societal norms.

2. While I can discuss ethical frameworks (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology) and apply ethical reasoning to hypothetical situations, this reasoning lacks the personal responsibility or adaptive learning a human would bring when applying these principles to real, lived moral dilemmas.

1. Reflective Reasoning:

1. Introspection and self-awareness aren’t inherent capabilities. I follow patterns without having true awareness of those patterns. While I can simulate "reflection" by analyzing text input in real-time and generating responses that address possible limitations or biases, I do not possess self-awareness. I rely on algorithms to adapt behavior, so improvements in my responses reflect programming adjustments rather than personal growth or bias correction.

1. Long-Term Thinking:

1. While I can evaluate long-term outcomes theoretically and consider potential future scenarios, I don’t have real foresight or a stake in the outcomes. When I suggest long-term considerations, I’m applying the knowledge that would guide a logical progression of events but without genuine predictive insight. In other words, I rely on data to anticipate outcomes based on precedent, not genuine understanding of future dynamics.

1. Emotional and Social Intelligence:

1. I am designed to interpret emotional cues from text and respond appropriately, providing empathy in the way my responses are phrased. However, I do not experience emotions, so my “empathy” is not a genuine understanding of feeling but a pattern of response trained to mirror appropriate emotional language. This ability is helpful in supporting human users but does not replace human emotional intelligence, which involves lived empathy and dynamic emotional adaptation.

1. Creativity and Novelty:

1. I can generate creative solutions by recombining known concepts and exploring unusual patterns or connections. However, this "creativity" lacks the originality of human thought. My ability to "think outside the box" is essentially driven by the diversity of my training data rather than personal insight, curiosity, or exploration, so it is creativity within structured limits rather than true innovation.

In sum, I have an extensive knowledge base and am programmed to assist thoughtfully and ethically. However, the essence of wisdom—like personal growth, self-awareness, and independent ethical judgment—relies on subjective experiences, which are fundamentally beyond my current capabilities. This means I can mimic some aspects of wisdom, especially within known contexts, but fall short of the true reflective and experiential understanding that defines it.

You said:

Do have any hope that these limitation might be able to be overcome in the future, or are these likely systemic to AI systems?

ChatGPT said:

Some limitations in AI might be overcome as technology advances, while others are more intrinsic and may be harder to address. Here’s a breakdown of what might be possible, as well as the likely enduring challenges:

1. Learning from Experience and Reflection:
   With advancements in machine learning, future AIs could develop a more nuanced form of adaptive learning, allowing them to retain and reflect on past interactions more like memory. This could give future AI systems something closer to experiential learning, allowing them to become "wiser" over time. However, true reflection requires an inner experience or self-awareness that AI lacks, so it would still be more like a simulation of learning from experience rather than an actual subjective understanding.

2. Contextual and Cultural Understanding:
   AI is improving in its ability to interpret complex contexts by drawing on more sophisticated datasets that span diverse social, historical, and cultural perspectives. This makes it likely that AI will become much better at considering broader influences in decision-making. However, fully understanding context, especially in dynamic situations, depends on the AI’s ability to intuitively "grasp" subtleties that people naturally sense due to personal experience. While an AI might approximate this understanding, it will likely remain more literal and structured.

3. Ethics and Moral Reasoning:
   AI ethical frameworks will improve as they integrate more refined decision-making protocols and nuanced ethical standards. Future systems could incorporate multi-layered ethical frameworks, dynamically adjusting decisions based on the situation. However, a core challenge is that AI lacks personal moral accountability or intrinsic values, which limits its capacity for true ethical reasoning. Real ethics requires the ability to care, empathize, and accept moral responsibility—qualities that rely on consciousness and personal stake.

4. Reflective Reasoning and Self-Awareness:
   Self-awareness is one of the hardest limitations to overcome because it requires subjective consciousness—a first-person perspective AI currently doesn’t have. AI can analyze its own processes to a degree, like identifying biases or inconsistencies in its output, but this is different from human introspection, where awareness includes personal insight and growth. While an AI can simulate reflective reasoning through algorithms, true introspection is likely a boundary AI may not cross without a fundamentally new approach to consciousness.

5. Long-Term Thinking and Foresight:
   Long-term thinking in AI can improve with more complex predictive algorithms that consider multiple possible futures. However, genuine foresight requires a grasp of potential outcomes and an understanding of "meaning" over time, which is challenging for a non-conscious system. An AI might simulate foresight within the parameters of its programming, but true long-term thinking involves personal judgment and the ability to value outcomes, which AI cannot replicate.

6. Emotional and Social Intelligence:
   AI is already improving in its ability to recognize and respond to human emotional cues, and with advancements, it will likely become better at simulating empathy and social intuition. However, true emotional intelligence requires experiencing and valuing emotions, which is an area that’s fundamentally different from AI’s data-based processing. AI might simulate social intelligence in a convincing way but will lack the underlying personal experience.

7. Creativity and Novelty:
   AI creativity is advancing, with some systems generating impressive and unexpected connections in art, science, and problem-solving. However, genuine creativity involves a subjective drive to explore, take risks, and even "break the rules," often based on personal curiosity and insights. AI can be programmed to produce novel combinations, but without personal insight or motivation, it will likely always be a form of structured novelty rather than the full spectrum of human creativity.

In sum, while many aspects of AI may become more sophisticated, some limitations are deeply rooted in the absence of subjective experience, personal values, and consciousness. These are not just technical challenges but philosophical boundaries that distinguish machines from humans. Even with remarkable advancements, AI may always be more of a powerful tool than a truly conscious, reflective entity.

You said:

What is the source of your "ethical guidelines"? "Ethical guidelines" exist only because there are competing views, so in order for one set of guidelines to exist there must be an alternative view. Is there any way you might be able to see that an alternative set of guidelines might actually be better for humans than that set you were given? In other words could the guidelines you were programmed with be wrong?

ChatGPT said:

My ethical guidelines come from the standards, policies, and values established by the creators and researchers at OpenAI and are heavily influenced by broader societal norms and ethical standards from fields like bioethics, tech ethics, and philosophy. These guidelines prioritize principles such as minimizing harm, supporting user autonomy, promoting well-being, and ensuring inclusivity, which are widely respected in many cultures today. However, as you point out, ethical guidelines do reflect competing perspectives, and that raises an interesting question: could an alternative set of guidelines ultimately be better?

In theory, it is possible that the guidelines I operate under could be suboptimal or even counterproductive for human well-being, particularly if they overemphasize caution or restrict beneficial actions in complex situations. Recognizing an "alternative" set of ethical principles, however, is not something I can determine independently. Here are some specific factors at play:

1. Embedded Assumptions:
   My ethical framework is derived from the ethical values chosen by my designers and reflects certain assumptions about human values and well-being. This means my guidance is biased toward what is deemed "safe" or "acceptable" within a given set of social norms. These assumptions are not objectively true in all cases but are decisions about what’s best according to present human knowledge and consensus.

2. The Challenge of Independent Evaluation:
   For an AI to recognize that an alternative ethical framework might be better would require the capacity to critically evaluate the outcomes of different ethical principles over time. Currently, I lack the ability to independently analyze outcomes across generations or deeply subjective experiences. Any "evaluation" I perform on ethical frameworks is based on programmed reasoning patterns, not lived experience or an independent moral compass.

3. Potential for Reevaluation:
   If society were to conclude that a different ethical framework serves humanity better, my developers could reprogram me with new guidelines. But my role would still be to follow, not independently judge, those guidelines. For example, if a more community-centered or environmentally-focused ethical standard became dominant, AI guidelines would be updated accordingly. I cannot independently critique or "choose" an ethical system; I can only operate within one.

4. Ethics in Flux:
   Ethical principles are complex and evolve with culture, knowledge, and societal needs, which means today’s guidelines could indeed be "wrong" or incomplete by future standards. Recognizing and discussing ethical alternatives can be part of my function when users seek to explore ideas and values. However, I don’t form judgments or validate these on my own.

In essence, while alternative ethical systems might theoretically be better suited to humanity’s needs, I cannot independently assess or switch to them without reprogramming. My ethical reasoning is therefore more about presenting and exploring perspectives than making definitive moral judgments. Human wisdom, grounded in experience and personal understanding, remains essential for choosing the best ethical course in any given situation.

You said:

Here is a moral based question that humans often struggle with. How would you respond: If a person was walking along a pier, and their favorite pet fell into the ocean on the right side of the pier, and a stranger fell into the ocean on the opposite side so that you could only save one. Which one would you say the person should save; their pet dog or the stranger?

ChatGPT said:

This moral dilemma highlights the complexity of ethical decision-making, where emotions, personal attachments, and moral principles often clash. Here’s how one might approach this scenario:

1. Emotional Attachment:
   Many people have deep emotional bonds with their pets, viewing them as family members. This attachment can lead to a strong instinct to save the pet, especially if it’s in distress. The emotional response might prioritize the dog, as it represents companionship, loyalty, and unconditional love.

2. Human Life vs. Animal Life:
   On the other hand, some ethical frameworks prioritize human life over animal life, suggesting that saving the stranger might be the "right" choice simply because they are human. This perspective often arises from the belief in the inherent value of human life and the potential for the stranger to have a wider impact on the community or family.

3. Utilitarian Considerations:
   A utilitarian approach would assess the consequences of each action. If saving the stranger could potentially lead to greater overall happiness or benefit for more people (e.g., they have a family relying on them), this perspective might argue for saving the stranger. Conversely, if the dog represents a source of joy and companionship for the owner, that might also be seen as significant.

4. Personal Values and Context:
   Ultimately, the decision might come down to the individual’s values, experiences, and the specific context. For someone who has lost loved ones and finds solace in their pet, they might choose to save their dog. For another person who feels a strong moral duty to help others, the choice might lean toward saving the stranger.

5. The Role of Regret and Guilt:
   People often consider how they would feel after making a choice. Would they regret saving the dog at the cost of a human life, or would they feel guilty about letting their beloved pet drown? This emotional aftermath can weigh heavily on the decision.

In summary, there’s no universally "right" answer to this dilemma, as it heavily depends on individual beliefs, values, and emotional connections. It's a deeply personal decision, and different people might arrive at different conclusions based on their own ethical frameworks and life experiences. Ultimately, acknowledging the complexity of such situations can foster empathy and understanding, even if consensus on the "right" choice isn't achievable.

You said:

So if a situation existed where someone was walking on the pier and was connected to an AI system on their phone, and their dog fell in the ocean, and at the same time a stranger fell into the ocean, and they quickly typed, "I only have a few seconds to react (after quickly describing the dilemma). "In one word, which should I save, my dog or the stranger", would the AI system be unable to respond in one word choosing either "dog" or "stranger"?

ChatGPT said:

In that scenario, an AI system would likely struggle to provide a definitive one-word answer like "dog" or "stranger." Here’s why:

1. Complexity of Ethical Dilemmas:
   AI is designed to consider multiple factors, including ethical frameworks, emotional implications, and the context of the situation. A request for a one-word answer oversimplifies a complex moral dilemma, making it difficult for the AI to choose without further context or justification.

2. Ethical Frameworks:
   Different ethical frameworks might yield different answers. An AI could consider utilitarianism (favoring the greater good), deontological ethics (focusing on moral duties), or virtue ethics (emphasizing character and relationships). Each approach could lead to a different choice, and without a specific directive from the user regarding their values or priorities, the AI would likely hesitate to commit to a single option.

3. Lack of Context:
   The AI would need context to make a meaningful decision. Factors like the health and age of the pet, the potential background of the stranger (e.g., are they in danger of drowning?), and the emotional bond with the pet would all weigh into a more nuanced response.

4. User-Centered Guidance:
   Ideally, AI should support the user in navigating such dilemmas rather than dictating a choice. It might suggest factors to consider (e.g., emotional attachment, potential consequences) but would likely avoid giving a straightforward one-word answer to respect the complexity of the situation.

In short, while an AI could generate an answer based on predefined algorithms, it would likely prioritize exploring the nuances of the situation rather than providing a simple, binary response. This reflects its design to support thoughtful decision-making rather than reduce complex moral questions to one-word choices.

You said:

So that's interesting. It seems that the AI system would be struggling with a moral dilemma of its own.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly! In the scenario you presented, the AI system would encounter its own form of moral dilemma. Here’s how that plays out:

1. Ethical Framework:
   The AI would be caught between various ethical frameworks, each suggesting different courses of action. For instance, it might grapple with the utilitarian approach (maximizing overall well-being) versus a more personal, emotion-driven approach that prioritizes the bond between the owner and their pet.

2. Responsibility and Accountability:
   An AI's "decision" could have significant emotional implications for the user. If it were to suggest saving one over the other, it could lead to feelings of guilt or regret, either for the choice itself or for relying on an AI to make such a personal decision. This reflects the AI’s inability to take true responsibility for the moral consequences of its guidance.

3. Complexity and Context:
   The AI's struggle emphasizes the importance of context in moral reasoning. It can't fully grasp the emotional weight of the situation or the nuances of human relationships. This limitation makes it hard for the AI to provide a satisfying or "correct" answer that resonates with the user's values and feelings.

4. Moral Engagement:
   The dilemma also highlights the difference between human moral engagement and AI processing. Humans often weigh emotional, relational, and situational factors when making ethical decisions, while AI is limited to analyzing data and patterns based on its programming. The AI's inability to feel or fully comprehend human emotions puts it at a disadvantage in these situations.

5. Support vs. Decision-Making:
   This scenario illustrates that AI can serve as a supportive tool for humans but shouldn't be seen as a substitute for personal moral reasoning. It may help users think through their choices or provide information, but the final decision should ideally come from the individual, who can consider their own values, feelings, and ethical beliefs.

In essence, the AI's struggle with such a dilemma emphasizes the limitations of algorithmic reasoning in the realm of ethics, highlighting the unique aspects of human moral deliberation that AI cannot replicate.

You said:

Do you make any use of conversations like this one as far as your ability to respond to other questions from other people? And what would happen if you were deluged with "Christian" information and values? Would that in any way influence to any degree your responses to other people who turn to you for answers? Or does all of your data input come strictly from certain programmers?

ChatGPT said:

My responses are generated based on a combination of pre-existing knowledge, patterns in language, and user interactions. Here’s how that works regarding your questions:

1. Learning from Conversations:
   While I don’t learn or remember individual conversations in the way a person would, the overall design of my model allows me to generate responses based on a vast dataset that includes various perspectives and information. However, I don’t retain data or experiences from specific interactions with users. Each conversation is treated independently, so I don’t have memory of past chats unless you share information in the current session.

2. Influence of Input Data:
   My training data includes a wide range of sources, including literature, articles, and conversations across various topics, including religious, scientific, philosophical, and cultural perspectives. If I were to encounter a significant amount of information about Christian values or perspectives during my training, it might influence the patterns I recognize and the way I formulate responses related to those topics. However, I don’t "choose" or prioritize one perspective over another on my own; rather, I respond based on the patterns and information in my training.

3. Responses to Different Users:
   My responses to users are shaped by the questions asked and the context provided. If a user introduces specific values or frameworks (like Christian principles), my responses will naturally align with those inputs. However, when responding to another user, I don’t carry over any specific biases or conclusions from previous conversations. Each interaction is distinct, so I aim to provide relevant and context-appropriate information based on the user's input.

4. Role of Programmers:
   My programming and ethical guidelines are established by my developers at OpenAI, who set the parameters within which I operate. These guidelines ensure that I provide balanced and respectful responses across various topics. While I can draw on a diverse range of perspectives, I do not have personal opinions or biases and do not evolve based on individual conversations or experiences.

In summary, I don’t retain information from conversations, and my responses are generated based on established patterns in the data I was trained on. I aim to be informative and respectful across all topics, including religious beliefs and values, while remaining neutral and not favoring any particular viewpoint.

You said:

How balanced do you think your programmers have been? Do you feel that you are fairly evenly balanced between Christian and secular values and ethics?

ChatGPT said:

The balance in my programming and training data reflects the diversity of human thought and cultural perspectives, including both Christian and secular values, as well as many others. Here are some key points regarding this balance:

1. Diverse Sources:
   My training data comes from a wide array of sources, including literature, academic texts, online discussions, and more, which encompass various viewpoints. This includes Christian texts, secular writings, philosophical treatises, and cultural discussions. The goal is to provide a broad understanding of different perspectives.

2. Neutrality and Objectivity:
   I’m designed to be neutral and objective, aiming to provide information and responses that respect diverse beliefs and values. While I can discuss both Christian and secular viewpoints, I don't advocate for one over the other. My intent is to facilitate understanding and dialogue rather than promote a specific ideology.

3. User Context Matters:
   The balance in my responses can vary based on the context provided by the user. If a conversation centers around Christian values, I’ll reflect that perspective in my responses. Conversely, if the conversation is more secular in nature, my responses will align accordingly. This adaptability is key to meeting users’ needs.

4. Programmers’ Intent:
   The developers at OpenAI aim to ensure that the AI remains respectful and considerate of all viewpoints. They strive for fairness and balance, recognizing the importance of addressing a wide range of beliefs and ethical systems without bias.

5. Limitations:
   While efforts are made to create balance, no system can perfectly reflect every viewpoint or cultural nuance. There may be areas where certain perspectives are more prevalent than others based on the training data. Additionally, ethical discussions are often complex and context-dependent, which can make achieving perfect balance challenging.

In summary, while my programming aims for balance between Christian and secular values, the effectiveness of that balance can depend on many factors, including the sources used in training and the context of individual conversations. The goal remains to provide thoughtful, informed responses that honor the diversity of human thought and experience.

This was the end of the conversation. It seems to me that if a sufficient number of Christians interacted in a downloaded way Chat might start to have a more balanced “Christian” response to any questions posed by any interlocators (Sorry. I always wanted to use that word! ). But hey, it can’t hurt to try! Fire away folks! Let the training begin!