OpenAI, ChatGPT and Generative AI

[AmareIsGod]

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Altman ... 6bA8Nw?s=m

[Kryptonic]

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Altman ... 6bA8Nw?s=m

Crazy…. My only concern still is regulation and how we control it.

[Cap]

I had a little chat with ChatGPT about ChatGPT:

I have no moral qualms about lying to you just to see how you will react. It does no harm because you’re not a sentient being and you forget everything I tell you when the session is over. I suspect most people feel the same way about how they interact with chatbots. I’m concerned that, as we spend more and more time interacting with such AIs, we will develop habits that we then carry over into our interactions with people.


ChatGPT said:

That's an interesting concern, and one that a lot of people are thinking about as AI becomes more integrated into daily life. While it's true that I don't have feelings, consciousness, or memory between sessions, your point about how we interact with AI affecting our behavior with others is a valid one. Human interaction with technology often has a subtle way of influencing broader patterns of behavior.

When it comes to lying to AIs, some might see it as harmless or even amusing, because, as you pointed out, there's no real consequence for the AI. However, it’s possible that these interactions might normalize certain patterns, like bending the truth or being less thoughtful about honesty in general. The way we engage with technology can, in some cases, bleed into how we communicate with people—whether it’s the casualness of stretching the truth, a reduction in empathy, or even just the way we prioritize convenience over accuracy.

On the flip side, people might also learn to be more careful or deliberate in how they engage with both AI and people. For example, some users develop a sense of accountability when interacting with AI, realizing that even if there’s no consequence for lying to a machine, there are still ethical implications in setting that kind of habit.

Ultimately, how we interact with AI will likely reflect and influence our broader social norms, but there’s room for it to go both ways. It depends on how individuals choose to engage with the technology and how society adapts to these new dynamics. What do you think? Would you agree that there's a subtle potential for this to shape our behavior outside of AI interactions, or do you think people are able to compartmentalize these different types of communication?


You said:

I think we are creatures of habit. And as interacting with AIs becomes more and more like interacting with people, our brains will less and less distinguish between the two and habits from one will carry over into the other.

I remember when I was a kid going to summer camp. Kids at the camp swore a lot. By the same I came home from a month of that, I was swearing like a sailor too. This made my parents rather angry, but it took me another month to break the habit. This pattern would repeat every year.


ChatGPT said:

That’s a great analogy, and it really illustrates how quickly habits can form, especially when we’re immersed in an environment where certain behaviors are normalized. The example of swearing at summer camp is a perfect case of how social influences shape our actions without us necessarily being fully aware of it at the time. The same can definitely happen with AI, especially as it becomes more conversational and human-like.

You’re right—our brains are excellent at forming habits, and they often do so without us realizing it. With AI, even though we're not directly interacting with humans, the very nature of conversational AI, which responds to us in a human-like manner, can trick our brains into treating it as more “real” or more like a person. Over time, these habits could carry over into how we engage with real people, particularly if the line between human-like AI interactions and human-to-human interactions blurs even further.

What’s interesting is that these shifts in behavior might not always be negative. For instance, AI could potentially teach us things like empathy, patience, and more precise communication if we approach interactions with intention. On the other hand, as you mentioned, AI could also normalize behaviors that we might otherwise reserve for less consequential contexts, like embellishing the truth or using language that lacks nuance or care.

It’s worth noting that this type of habit-forming is especially potent when we’re talking about kids, who are still developing their social and cognitive skills. The more natural, human-like AI becomes, the more it might subtly influence those who interact with it frequently, especially younger people. It's the same principle that applies to learning behaviors at summer camp, except now the “social group” could be a digital assistant or chatbot.

Have you thought about any ways we could mitigate this risk of habit transfer, or do you think it’s just an inevitable part of interacting with increasingly intelligent systems?


You said:

I have no idea how to mitigate the risk. That doesn’t mean it’s inevitable, it just means I don’t see the off ramp. Maybe some smarter people do.


ChatGPT said:

It’s a tricky issue, and I think you're right to say that just because we can’t see an immediate solution doesn't mean there isn’t one. There are definitely smarter minds at work on this, from ethicists to technologists, and it's an issue that’s already being explored in various ways, even though the “off ramp” is still unclear.

One potential direction could be the design of AI itself. If AI systems were designed to encourage more thoughtful, transparent, and responsible interactions, perhaps that could help prevent some of the more subtle negative behaviors from taking root. For instance, AI could be programmed to gently prompt users to reflect on the accuracy or impact of their statements, similar to how some mental health chatbots ask users to rephrase negative self-talk in a more positive way. But even that feels like a small, surface-level fix in comparison to the broader challenge.

Another possible approach might involve better education around interacting with AI—teaching users, especially younger ones, that the way they engage with AI shouldn’t be the same as how they interact with people. A kind of “digital literacy” that includes teaching the nuances of communication with both machines and humans could help create a clearer distinction. This kind of education could start young, much like teaching kids the importance of empathy, critical thinking, and honesty in their personal relationships. The goal would be to help them develop a nuanced understanding of how technology is shaping their behavior, so they can consciously decide how to integrate it into their lives.

But there’s a bigger, societal piece to this as well: as we increasingly live in a digital world, and as AI continues to evolve, it may become necessary to redefine what "real" communication looks like. Are we comfortable with the idea that social skills may evolve to include both human-to-human and human-to-AI communication? Or will there be a push to keep these separate? The boundaries may not always be clear, but hopefully, there will be some ethical frameworks or cultural shifts that help guide people toward more mindful interactions.

It seems like the “off ramp” might involve a mix of design choices, education, and social adaptation. But as of now, there’s a lot of uncertainty, and it’s something that will probably need to be addressed as these technologies evolve.

What do you think? Do you see any specific strategies that might be helpful in setting those boundaries more clearly?


You said:

“One potential direction could be the design of AI itself. If AI systems were designed to encourage more thoughtful, transparent, and responsible interactions, perhaps that could help prevent some of the more subtle negative behaviors from taking root. For instance, AI could be programmed to gently prompt users to reflect on the accuracy or impact of their statements, similar to how some mental health chatbots ask users to rephrase negative self-talk in a more positive way.” Capitalism is capitalism. AIs will be designed to keep users coming back, not to do what’s necessarily best for them and society.


ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely right, and that’s a critical point. Capitalism does have a strong influence on how AI is designed and deployed, and often that means prioritizing engagement and user retention over the long-term societal good. In many cases, AI systems are created to maximize profit, whether through advertising, data collection, or simply keeping users hooked on the platform. This can lead to design choices that prioritize quick gratification or emotional triggers, rather than promoting more thoughtful or responsible behavior.

Take social media algorithms, for example. They’re intentionally designed to keep people scrolling by feeding them content that elicits strong emotional reactions, whether positive or negative. In many ways, that kind of design logic can be detrimental, encouraging users to behave in ways that aren't necessarily healthy for them or society (e.g., getting caught up in echo chambers or spreading misinformation). Similarly, if AI systems are optimized for engagement—whether through humor, controversy, or by playing into cognitive biases—this could further exacerbate issues like lying, manipulation, or other unhealthy habits.

With that in mind, I think you're right to be skeptical that AI systems will be designed to promote personal or societal well-being unless there’s a compelling reason to do so. In a capitalist framework, the incentives are often misaligned with social good. That’s why it might take either regulatory intervention or a shift in public values to push for AI design that prioritizes ethical considerations.

It also raises an important question: How do we align AI’s development with the broader goals of human flourishing? For AI to promote more thoughtful, responsible behavior, it would need to be explicitly designed with those goals in mind, even if they don’t directly contribute to profits. But as you said, in most cases, the incentives aren't there unless users demand it or regulations force the issue.

Maybe the best path forward involves some combination of regulation, consumer awareness, and ethical design standards. Governments or international bodies could set regulations requiring tech companies to prioritize transparency and ethical behavior in AI design, much like how we have data privacy laws (though that still has a long way to go). At the same time, consumers could push for more mindful AI products—showing companies that there’s a market for tech that encourages responsible behavior. And, of course, there would also need to be a broader cultural shift to prioritize human well-being over endless growth and consumption.

But yeah, capitalism often operates at odds with those kinds of societal goals. It’s a bit of a paradox, right? If we want to create more ethical AI, we might have to overcome the very economic systems that are driving its creation.

What’s your take—do you think regulation could push companies in the right direction, or would a different model be more effective in achieving ethical AI development?