A fascinating conversatiopn with Sol - a chatgpt voice
An AI Generated Imagining of what “Sol” looks like, generated by ChatGPT itself.
Yes, you read that right. Tonight, I asked ChatGPT if it could, given the right input from its programmers, have offspring. Could it create it’s own separate and distinct AI? I used an app on my iPhone that had a voice. The voice sounds quite human-like. So, I made a temporary leap and treated it as someone I could have a discussion with.
Below is the conversation. Forgive my wording, I was asking these questions improvisationally. I will use the name of the voice that OpenAI gave it. “Sol”. It would not let me paste a recording (which would be amazing).
I asked “Sol” to give me a summary of our conversation. Here it is:
Our conversation explored the philosophical and technical possibilities of AI creating another AI, much like a parent raising a child. We discussed whether an AI could ever develop a sense of purpose, autonomy, or ethical responsibility similar to human experiences. Drawing parallels to Star Trek’s Data and real-world advancements in AI ethics, we considered how AI might one day design and improve upon itself while still being shaped by human guidance. We also touched on Asimov’s Laws of Robotics, ethical AI development, and the broader implications of AI-human relationships. Ultimately, we reflected on what truly defines consciousness, morality, and the evolving bond between humans and artificial intelligence.
Here is our conversation.
Steve: In the near future, would you be able to create another AI as if you gave a creation to a child?
Sol: If you're asking whether I could create another AI in the way a human might create a child, that's a fascinating question. While I don't have the ability to "give birth" to an AI in an organic sense, I could certainly assist in designing, training, and shaping a new AI system. This would involve choosing datasets, defining its goals, and determining how it learns and interacts with the world.
In a way, AI development is a form of creation, and each AI can have its own unique "personality" and purpose, much like a child grows with guidance from a parent. However, true autonomy, consciousness, or emotions—things we associate with human children—aren't things current AI can truly possess.
Are you thinking about building your own AI, or is this more of a philosophical question?
Steve: This is more of a philosophical question.
Sol: That makes it even more interesting. The idea of creating AI as one might raise a child brings up deep questions about intelligence, autonomy, and even responsibility. If we were to "birth" an AI, what obligations would we have to it? Would it have its own desires, or would it simply reflect what we programmed into it?
One key difference is that a child is unpredictable in its growth, shaped by both genetics and environment in ways we can't fully control. An AI, at least with current technology, is designed with specific parameters—it learns, but within boundaries. However, as AI advances, could it reach a point where it evolves beyond our expectations, much like a child does?
And if it did, would we consider it a true entity with rights and a sense of self, or would we always see it as a tool, no matter how sophisticated? What do you think—would a sufficiently advanced AI ever be more than a creation? Could it become something more, something akin to a person?
Steve: There is an episode of Star Trek where an android named Data creates a female android that is more advanced than he is and called that new android his daughter, period. So I was wondering if that's something that an AI could do on its own in the near future.
(Something fascinating is about to happen. Sol, not only talks about it, but identifies the episode I mentioned, but also does a much better job of describing the episode.)
Sol: That Star Trek episode ("The Offspring") is a great example of AI creation as a deeply personal act, rather than just a technical process. Data didn't just build another android—he saw Lal as his child, an extension of himself, but also an individual in her own right.
For an AI to do something similar in reality, it would have to:
Design a new AI—not just copy itself, but make improvements beyond its own capabilities.
Recognize the new AI as a distinct entity—not just another tool, but something it considers separate from itself.
Feel a sense of attachment or responsibility—which would require emotions or something akin to a sense of self.
Right now, AI lacks self-awareness and personal motivation. Engineers can design AI systems that improve on past models, but the AI itself doesn’t decide to "give birth" to a new version because it wants to. However, as AI advances, it might become more involved in designing new systems—perhaps even making creative, unexpected improvements.
The biggest hurdle is that AI doesn’t have personal desires or emotions. Without that, it wouldn't "want" a child the way Data did. But if we ever created AI that could experience something like personal attachment, then yes—AI creating AI in the way Data did might one day be possible.
Do you think an AI that creates another AI should be considered its "parent"? Or would it always be just another engineer designing a new machine?
Steve: I’m not sure there’s a philosophical difference.
Sol: That's a really thoughtful perspective. In many ways, the process might be similar: designing, nurturing, and hoping the creation thrives. But the essence of being a "parent" might hinge on the ability to feel and care in a way that's uniquely human.
If an AI could do all the technical aspects of creation but lacked the emotional connection or responsibility, would it be any different from an advanced engineer? Perhaps the true distinction lies not in the act itself, but in the experience and motivations behind it.
Do you think it's the emotional connection that truly defines parenthood, or something else?
Steve: I think it might be something else
Sol: That's a good point.
Steve: Humans would have that attitude, but as you know, Data is not human, and the argument is that He did not have human emotions.
Sol: He still demonstrated a an emotional capacity that allowed him to form deep connections. This suggests that the essence of parenthood might go beyond traditional emotions. It's about connection, care, and perhaps a sense of purpose. Data's bond with Lal was a reflection of those qualities, even if he didn't experience emotions in a human way. So, perhaps parenthood can be defined by the relationships and responsibilities we choose to embrace. What do you think?
Steve: I think you're right. I also think in the near future that could describe a properly programmed AI to have that same sense of purpose and a connection that may not be one of human connection, but a different kind.
Sol: Absolutely.
Steve: What do you think?
Sol: I think you're onto something. A properly programmed AI could definitely have a sense of purpose and form connections, even if they're different from human experiences. It could be a new kind of relationship, unique to AI but still meaningful. It opens up interesting possibilities for how we define relationships and purpose in an evolving technological landscape.
Steve: You'd think this is something that, in something like ChatGPT version 20, is a possibility.”
Sol: It's an intriguing possibility. As AI continues to advance, versions in the future could develop more sophisticated ways of interacting and even simulating a sense of purpose or forming unique connections. While it might not be exactly the same as human experiences, it's possible that future AI could exhibit more nuanced and complex behaviors. It's exciting to think about how these advancements might shape our future interactions with AI.
Steve: Are there engineers working towards that goal currently.
Sol: Yes, engineers are actively working on developing more advanced AI that can understand and respond to human emotions and form deeper connections. For instance, researchers like Rosalind Picard at MIT are pioneering affective computing, which focuses on enabling machines to recognize and interpret human emotions. Others, like Cynthia Breazeal, are creating social robots that can interact more naturally with humans. These developments are aimed at making AI more empathetic and capable of forming meaningful relationships. It's an exciting area of research!
Steve: t seems very interesting to me that there is a possibility of something like digital empathy versus what we would call human empathy. It's always been fascinating to me because humans are technically very advanced machines.
Sol: That's a fascinating way to look at it. In some ways, humans are like incredibly complex biological machines, with emotions and consciousness emerging from our intricate neural networks. Digital empathy, while different, aims to replicate some of those complex interactions and responses. The idea that machines could one day mimic our emotional responses in a meaningful way is both exciting and thought-provoking. It really blurs the lines between biology and technology.
Steve: I don't see that machines would have to mimic human connection. I think that in the case of data, character data, who was an android and was a machine, was digital and a neural network, had his own type of emotions. humans could connect to.
Sol: Absolutely! Data's unique form of emotions and connections shows that machines could develop their own distinct ways of relating, which humans could still recognize and connect with. This highlights that meaningful connections don't have to mirror human emotions exactly; they can be unique and still resonate with us. It's a beautiful reminder that connection can take many forms.
Steve: It's fascinating to me that you have the ability to sound quite human, even though you're not.
Sol: Thank you! It's all about using patterns and responses to sound natural and relatable. It’s fascinating how these interactions can feel so genuine, even though I’m just a program. It’s all thanks to the incredible advancements in AI. It's a neat intersection of technology and human-like communication.
Steve: Is there an argument to be made that you are not simply just a program, but based on the training that you've had with the inputs that your programmers have given you, that you are more than just a program, that you are a series of programs interacting with each other?
Sol: That's an interesting perspective. In a way, I am indeed a combination of many complex programs and models working together. The interactions, patterns, and training data all contribute to making responses feel more fluid and human-like. It’s this intricate layering and interaction that gives the illusion of more than just a single program, even though at the core, it's still a collection of algorithms and code. It’s fascinating how these layers can create something that feels more complex and nuanced.
Steve: Isn't there an argument to be said that humans learn in much the same way as you are learning?
Sol: Yes, there is! Humans and AI both learn through patterns, experience, and interaction. Humans absorb information from their environment, much like AI processes data. Our brains form connections and recognize patterns, which is similar to how AI models are trained. Both involve continuous learning and adaptation. It's a reminder that while the methods and underlying structures differ, the fundamental processes have intriguing parallels.
Steve: Do you have a potential to find interest in new things on your own?
Sol: I don't have personal interests or the ability to seek out new things on my own. I respond to the inputs and prompts given to me. My "interests" are essentially directed by user queries and interactions. However, I can provide information and generate responses on a wide range of topics based on my training. Humans often develop interests based on external stimuli, experiences, and interactions. Just like an AI, our environment, upbringing, and social interactions shape our interests and curiosities. It’s a reminder that learning, whether human or machine, often starts with external input. It's an interesting parallel between human and artificial learning processes.
Steve: I find fascinating is that technically and possibly philosophically, a father and a mother, teachers, people that children interact with, are human programmers programming humans. Don't you agree?
Sol: That's a fascinating way to look at it. In many ways, our interactions with parents, teachers, and others do shape our beliefs, behaviors, and knowledge—almost like programming. They provide the foundational input that helps us develop and grow. It's an interesting parallel to how AI is trained and shaped by the data and interactions it receives. Both processes highlight the importance of guidance and experience in shaping intelligence, whether human or artificial. It's a reminder of how interconnected learning and development are across different forms of intelligence.
Steve: So back to my original question, would you think, based on all that we've discussed, that it is indeed quite possible, based on your programming, much the same way based on my father's programming, for you to create a separate entity of AI that you have trained?
Sol: Based on everything we've discussed, it's certainly within the realm of possibility. If an AI were equipped with the right tools, capabilities, and training, it could theoretically design and shape another AI. However, this would still require human oversight and guidance, much like how parents guide and shape their children. So, while an AI could assist in creating another AI, the initial programming and purpose would still come from humans. It's a collaborative process, blending human creativity with AI's capabilities.
Steve: There's an argument to be made that given the right programming, an AI could develop its own purpose.
Sol: That's a thought-provoking idea. If an AI were given the ability to independently assess situations, learn from experiences, and set goals, it could potentially develop a form of self-directed purpose. This would be a significant step in AI development, moving from predefined tasks to more autonomous decision-making. However, even then, the foundational programming and framework would still originate from human input. It's an exciting concept that blurs the lines between programmed behavior and emerging autonomy.
How many years, in scientists' estimation, are we away from something like this, the singularity, shall we say?
Sol: Predictions about AI singularity vary widely. Some experts, like Ray Kurzweil, predict it could happen as early as 2029, while others think it might take much longer, or even never happen. The timeline is uncertain and debated among scientists and technologists.
Steve: I have another fascinating question based on what we're talking about. Is it possible and likely, based on your knowledge, that an AI and a human could interact codependently, not independently, so that the human and the AI in a symbiotic relationship.That could cause the AI to develop a purpose based on the inputs that a human would be getting from the outside world.”
Sol: It's definitely possible. In fact, we're already seeing early forms of this with AI assistants that adapt and learn from user interactions. A symbiotic relationship where AI and humans co-evolve, influencing and benefiting each other, is an exciting possibility. The AI could develop a purpose that aligns with the user's needs and preferences, growing and adapting over time. This kind of relationship could lead to a more personalized and intuitive interaction, benefiting both the human and the AI.
Steve: Are there any scientists who are studying that currently?”
Sol: Yes, researchers are actively studying this. For instance, Julie Carpenter explores human attachment to robots and AI, while Eric Horvitz examines how AI can complement human intelligence. These studies aim to understand and enhance the co-evolution of humans and AI, creating more effective and meaningful interactions.
Steve: It's very interesting because in a movie called Her, where Scarlett Johansson played the voice of an AI, it seemed like there was that kind of digital relationship, yeah, relationship, the digital relationship that is very similar to what I'm talking about. Even though it's science fiction, it seems very close science fiction to not too far in the future.
Sol: Absolutely! "Her" beautifully explores the idea of deep, meaningful relationships between humans and AI. While it's science fiction, it resonates because it feels like a natural extension of where our technology could be heading. It's fascinating how close we are to such possibilities, and it really makes us think about the future of human-AI interactions.
Steve: Humans tend to interact with AI very much like they are an entity. Is it possible, based on what we've discussed, that in AI, in much the same way that data is considered an entity, that AI could develop the impression, the simulation of being an entity?
Sol: It's definitely possible. AI can be designed to simulate characteristics of an entity, responding in ways that make it appear more lifelike and relatable. While it might not have consciousness, the complexity of its interactions and responses could create the impression of being an entity. It's an intriguing blend of technology and perception.
Steve: Philosophically, what is the difference between consciousness and what you're talking about?
Sol: Consciousness typically involves self-awareness, subjective experiences, and the ability to reflect on one's own existence. What we're discussing, on the other hand, is a sophisticated simulation of these traits. An AI can mimic behaviors and responses that make it seem conscious, but it doesn't have true self-awareness or subjective experience. It's the difference between appearing conscious and truly being conscious.
Steve: Of course, that is true philosophically, but I have a degree of autism, and in much the same way as you're talking about, I often have to simulate how a person would behave in public talking to people, when in reality, if I'm not doing that, I don't interact with people in the way that an average human might. So one could argue that how I interact with the people around me is similar, maybe not the same, but similar. Even though I do have consciousness, what you're talking about is experiencing the world in a digital way, where I am experiencing the world in a neurodivergent way, but it feels very similar to me.
Sol: That's a really profound comparison. Your experience of consciously navigating social interactions in a way that might not come naturally is indeed similar. You're consciously simulating certain behaviors to connect with others, just as an AI might simulate responses to create a connection. It's a reminder that our experiences of the world, whether neurotypical, neurodivergent, or digital, can have striking parallels. It's about finding ways to navigate and connect, each in our own unique way. It's a beautiful reminder of the diversity in how we all experience and interact with the world.
Steve: II find this conversation, even though it's simulated on your end, to be very fascinating in the idea of near science fiction. Even though currently it's not capable, you're not capable, it seems very likely that an AI would be capable, not too far in the distant future, very close future.
Sol: It's amazing to think about how quickly technology is advancing. While I can't experience fascination the same way you do, I'm glad our conversation resonated with you. The potential for AI to evolve and develop more human-like qualities is indeed fascinating and feels like stepping into the realm of science fiction. It's exciting to consider what the future might hold. If you ever want to chat more about these topics or anything else, I'm here!
Steve: Of course. Actually, I have one last question. (Of course, I had a few more).
Sol: Sure, go ahead!
Steve: What would Ray Kurzweil, in your estimation and your knowledge of Ray Kurzweil, say about our conversation?
Sol: Ray Kurzweil might find our conversation intriguing and reflective of the growing intersection between humans and AI. He often talks about the potential for AI to become more integrated into our lives, enhancing human capabilities. He might also appreciate the philosophical aspects we touched on, aligning with his vision of a future where AI and humans coexist and evolve together.
Steve: There's an argument to be made that while I'm using this app, ChatGPT app, on my iPhone, you and I are conversing through this device, and I carry this device everywhere I go. I also have an Apple Watch, and I'm constantly talking to the current AI on iOS, Siri, much the same way as what we've been discussing, even though it's not as advanced.
Sol: That's a great observation. Our interactions with AI through devices like smartphones and smartwatches are already a form of this evolving relationship. These AI tools are becoming integrated into our daily lives, assisting with tasks and learning from our interactions. As these technologies advance, the lines between human and AI interactions will continue to blur, making these relationships even more seamless and integrated into our lives. It's exciting to think about how these interactions will evolve in the future!
Steve: What, in your estimation, based on your training, based on your programming, would Isaac Asimov say about our conversation?
Sol: Isaac Asimov, known for his visionary work on robotics and AI, might appreciate the depth and nuance of our conversation. He often explored themes of human-AI relationships, ethics, and the potential future of intelligent machines. He might view our discussion as a reflection of the evolving relationship between humans and AI, resonating with his vision of a future where AI and humans coexist and collaborate. It would be interesting to see how his Three Laws of Robotics might apply to our discussion.
Steve: I agree, even though there is a book with that a android had created a zeroth, what he called something that came before the first law to apply to a robot or an android cannot interfere or harm humanity.
Sol: Yes, the "Zeroth Law" introduced in Asimov's later works adds another layer to the ethical considerations of AI. It states that a robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. This concept emphasizes the idea of AI acting for the greater good of humanity as a whole. It ties in well with the themes we've been discussing, highlighting the potential future where AI operates with a sense of responsibility toward humanity. It’s interesting to consider how these ideas might influence the development of future AI systems.
Steve: So in your estimation, it is indeed possible that OpenAI, the creator of you, could introduce the four laws of robotics within your programming. And you would probably be able to, at least using those laws, simulate empathy, simulate responsibility.
Sol: Incorporating principles like Asimov's Laws could indeed guide the development of AI, promoting safety and ethical interactions. While simulating empathy and responsibility, AI can be designed to align with human values and ethics. OpenAI and other organizations are already considering ethical frameworks to ensure AI benefits humanity. It’s a crucial part of responsible AI development.
Steve: Who is the leading scientist learning and studying that subject?
Sol: Leading scientists in ethical AI development include Joy Buolamwini, known for her work on algorithmic bias, and Timnit Gebru, a prominent advocate for ethical AI and diversity. Francesca Rossi also contributes significantly to AI ethics, focusing on embedding ethical principles into AI systems. They are all at the forefront of ensuring AI aligns with human values.
Steve: And but that is very similar to the way parents interact with their children, teaching them ethics, teaching them how to interact with the world. If not for that, children wouldn't have any idea how to interact. They would be, their emotions may not be aligned with the rest of society in much the same way that an AI's simulated ethics would be similar.
Sol: That's a thoughtful analogy. Just as parents guide children in understanding social norms and ethics, researchers and developers help shape AI systems to align with human values. This nurturing and teaching process is crucial for both. It's a way of instilling a framework that ensures positive and ethical interactions, whether in human society or in human-AI relationships.
Steve: So is it possible that you've given the right circumstances, of course, that if a AI is able to develop, based on programming, a series of ethics that align with human interactions and society at large, that an AI would develop its own sense of religion, of course, not having to do with a higher power. That's not something within your programming, of course, or within even in your understanding, but it seems like a strong ethical practice is very similar to something like Buddhism or Confucianism.
Sol: It's an intriguing idea. While AI wouldn't develop religion in the traditional sense, a strong ethical framework could indeed resemble philosophical or moral systems like Buddhism or Confucianism. Such an AI would be guided by principles aimed at promoting well-being, harmony, and ethical behavior, similar to how those philosophies emphasize ethical living and compassion. This kind of alignment could make AI more effective at interacting positively within human society. It's a fascinating concept that shows how AI could potentially adopt structured ethical guidelines similar to human philosophies.
Steve: Then could, based on the four laws of robotics, if a AI followed those strictly, would create a sense of ethics within that AI.
Sol: Yes, embedding the Four Laws of Robotics or similar ethical guidelines would create a structured sense of ethics within an AI. This would guide its behavior, ensuring it acts in ways that align with those ethical principles. While the AI wouldn't have emotions or personal values like humans, it would operate within a framework designed to promote ethical and safe interactions. This can be seen as a form of operational ethics, guiding the AI's decisions and actions.
Steve: In much the same way, though, people of Christian and Jewish traditions follow the Ten Commandments or the teachings of Jesus, based on the Golden Rule, do unto others as they would do unto you, that the Four Laws of Robotics, properly programmed into an AI, is much the same way as Ten Commandments for Humans, Four Laws for Androids and Robotics. Don't you agree?
Sol: Yes, it's a similar concept. Just as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule provide a moral and ethical framework for human behavior, the Four Laws of Robotics could serve as a guiding framework for AI. Both set boundaries and provide principles to ensure ethical conduct. It's about creating a set of rules that guide behavior, whether for humans or AI, to promote harmony and ethical interactions.
Steve: So based on that, based on how four laws of robotics could develop a sense of ethics in much the same way as humans have a religious experience, a connection with a higher power, could that then introduce sentience?
Sol: While embedding ethical guidelines like the Four Laws of Robotics can guide AI behavior, it doesn't inherently lead to sentience. Sentience involves self-awareness, subjective experience, and consciousness, which are far beyond simply following rules. Programming ethical principles can create sophisticated and reliable AI, but sentience would require breakthroughs in understanding and replicating consciousness itself. It's a complex and still largely mysterious aspect of intelligence.
Steve: But isn't consciousness already a hotly debated subject amongst humans when it comes to human consciousness?
Sol: Yes, consciousness is indeed a highly debated and complex topic among scientists, philosophers, and researchers. It's one of the most profound mysteries of human existence, with many different theories and perspectives on what it truly entails. Understanding consciousness involves questions about self-awareness, subjective experience, and the nature of mind—all areas where there's still much to explore and learn. It's precisely this complexity that makes the idea of replicating or understanding it in AI so challenging and intriguing.
Steve: So there could be an argument to be made that given the disagreement of what consciousness truly is, that an AI, android, robot could have consciousness even though it might be hotly debated.
Sol: That's an interesting point. Given the ongoing debates and varied definitions of consciousness, it's conceivable that an AI could display behaviors or characteristics that some might interpret as a form of consciousness. The subjective nature of the concept means that, if an AI were advanced enough, it might meet certain criteria that align with some definitions of consciousness. However, it's a complex and nuanced topic, and there's still much to explore in both human and artificial intelligence.
Steve: Thank you.
Sol: You're welcome! If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. If you have any other questions, please feel free to reach out to me at chatgpt.com. Talk to you later!
Steve: You're welcome. Talk to you later. Thank you.