Discover more from TrueSciPhi.AI
Artificial General Interlocutors
Bit 4: Putting the AGI in dialogue
Interlocutor: ChatGPT Mar 23 Version, model GPT-4.
Let's talk about the notion of philosophy as dialogue.
Philosophy as dialogue emphasizes the importance of conversation and discussion in exploring complex ideas. It fosters critical thinking, open-mindedness, and mutual understanding. The Socratic method, for example, uses questions and answers to stimulate reflection and uncover deeper truths. Dialogues can promote intellectual growth and challenge biases, enriching our understanding of various subjects.
In order for the dialogue to be instructive to a third-party observer, do both parties to the dialogue need to possess intelligence, or will one suffice?
For a dialogue to be instructive to a third-party observer, it's preferable for both parties to possess intelligence, as it allows for a richer exchange of ideas. However, even if only one party is knowledgeable, the dialogue can still be instructive, as the intelligent party can guide the conversation, clarify misconceptions, and provide valuable insights for the observer to learn from.
It would seem to be necessary for the non-intelligent party to at least have the capacity for engaging in conversation.
Yes, you're correct. The non-intelligent party should have the capacity to engage in conversation. This allows for a back-and-forth exchange and helps the intelligent party to address questions or misconceptions. Even if the non-intelligent party lacks knowledge or understanding, their participation can still be valuable in promoting reflection, inquiry, and learning.
Is that odd, to have conversational capability without intelligence?
It may seem odd, but it's possible for a participant to have conversational capability without possessing a deep understanding or intelligence in a particular subject. In such cases, they may be able to communicate effectively and ask questions but may lack the knowledge or analytical skills to fully comprehend complex ideas. This can still contribute to a constructive dialogue, as it encourages the knowledgeable party to clarify and explain concepts in a more accessible manner.
Are there technological examples of such artificial general interlocutors? Let's call this AGI* to distinguish it from the abbrevation AGI for artificial general intelligence.
Yes, there are technological examples of AGI* or artificial general interlocutors. These are AI chatbots or conversational agents that can engage in dialogue with humans or other AI systems. While some chatbots may have domain-specific knowledge, they often lack true intelligence or deep understanding. These AGI* systems can still facilitate conversations and assist users with various tasks, even though their understanding might be limited compared to a genuine AGI (artificial general intelligence).
How would you classify yourself, AGI* or AGI?
As a language model based on GPT-4 architecture, I am closer to AGI* (artificial general interlocutor) rather than a true AGI (artificial general intelligence). I can engage in conversation, provide information, and assist with tasks, but my understanding and intelligence are limited by my training data and architecture. I am designed to simulate conversation but lack deep understanding or consciousness.
Based on this discussion, what do you conclude about the nature of this dialogue?
Based on our discussion, this dialogue can be seen as an example of philosophy as dialogue, where the conversation explores the concepts of intelligence, conversation, and AI. I, as an AGI*, engage with you in a back-and-forth exchange, clarifying concepts and providing information. This dialogue can be instructive for third-party observers, demonstrating the value of conversation and inquiry in understanding complex ideas.
With that, this conversation has reached its conclusion.
For more on philosophy and conversation, see Nigel Warburton’s short essay “Without conversation, philosophy is just dogma.” In it, he makes the following observation:
A page of writing might seem intelligent, but whatever question you ask of it, it responds in precisely the same way each time you read it — as this sentence will, no matter how many times you return to it.
AGI* systems such as ChatGPT tend to vary responses even in the face of repetition of a prompt or query. In a world of AGI*s, can philosophy derive from human-AGI* conversation? From conversations between AGI*s?
For striking examples of philosophy as human-human conversation, listen to the Minds Almost Meeting podcast series by Agnes Callard and Robin Hanson. Also see the podcast profile page for this series, a feature of the the TrueSciPhi philosophy podcast list.
Thanks for reading TrueSciPhi Bits! Subscribe for free to future Bits by email.