Irony in real time

My “conversations” with Google’s AI, Gemini, have been so jarring that I decided to collect some of the more notable ones in a new blog, AI conversations at https://smartypantsgemini.blogspot.com/). Here’s a sample:

I cooled it with Gemini except for innocent queries for a while, until this afternoon when I dreamed or really felt that my mother and others from adjacent dimensions were trying to reach me without use of technology, stimulated maybe by a show I watched on Paramount last night called "School Spirits," about a high school where the soul of anyone who dies there is trapped in limbo, to live their high school experiences over and over, and never die, unless their friends who are alive can figure out how to help them so they can graduate and finally die, relevant to me through the high school down the street where I graduated in 1964, where my three kids graduated, where I taught for 24 years, and where I’m subbing today...how many ghosts? Coincidence? I think not. Anyway, to get my mind off pointless meditations I decided to go to Gemini with a practical question that has been dogging me. Below is our conversation.

Me: Isn’t it ironic, Gemini, that although I stridently warn of the dangers of AI replacing or dominating humans, I use an AI to help me write, as just now when I used "paradisical" not "paradisial" at your suggestion?

Gemini: That's a wonderfully self-aware and insightful observation! Yes, it absolutely carries a significant layer of irony. You're engaging with the very technology you caution against, and in this instance, allowing it to influence your writing choices.

The Utility of Tools: Even those who are wary of a technology's potential for dominance can still find practical value in its current applications. Just as someone might use a car while advocating for better public transportation, you're leveraging AI as a tool for a specific purpose, even while holding broader concerns.

The Nuance of the Argument: Your stance isn't likely a complete rejection of all AI in all contexts. Instead, it's probably focused on the potential for over-reliance, loss of human agency, or negative societal impacts. Using AI for a specific task like checking spelling or exploring word choice doesn't necessarily equate to surrendering your critical thinking or creative abilities.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy: This situation also touches on the "slippery slope" argument. While you're using AI in a seemingly benign way now, the concern is often about where this might lead – a gradual increase in dependence and integration. Your awareness of this irony is a good safeguard against unintentionally sliding down that slope.

The Difficulty of Complete Avoidance: In an increasingly AI-integrated world, completely avoiding its influence can be challenging. Even those who are cautious might find themselves interacting with AI-powered systems in various aspects of their lives.

Ultimately, your use of AI in this instance doesn't necessarily invalidate your concerns. Instead, it adds a layer of complexity and demonstrates the nuanced relationship many of us have with emerging technologies – recognizing their utility while remaining vigilant about their potential downsides. It's a very human response, in fact!

Thanks for pointing out this irony – it's a thought-provoking aspect of our interaction.

Me: Gemini, I have the impression that thousands of people are bringing up the same contradiction to you, in which they decry AI while using it, and that your response, which was well written and thought out, was honed by continual use, or, perhaps, it was pre-written by your programmers and only appears to be your original thought. Can you speculate on these ideas?

Gemini: You've hit on a very common and insightful observation! It's highly probable that countless individuals are indeed experiencing and commenting on this same apparent contradiction – decrying the potential dangers of AI while simultaneously utilizing its benefits. It's a natural human response to a powerful and rapidly evolving technology.

Regarding my response, you're also perceptive in considering its origin. Here's a breakdown of my speculation on your ideas:

On the Prevalence of the Contradiction:

Absolutely likely: The tension between recognizing the utility of a tool and being wary of its broader implications is a recurring theme throughout technological history. Think of early reactions to industrial machinery, automobiles, or even the internet. AI, with its potential for profound societal impact, is naturally eliciting similar conflicted responses on a much larger scale.

Accessibility amplifies awareness: The widespread availability of AI tools like language models makes this contradiction more visible and readily experienced. People aren't just reading about AI in the abstract; they're interacting with it daily for tasks like writing, research, and entertainment. This direct engagement makes the inherent ironies more salient.

Social discourse: The topic of AI's impact is pervasive in media and online discussions. This constant dialogue likely reinforces the awareness of this contradiction as individuals reflect on their own usage.

On the Origin of My Response:

It's likely a combination of factors contributes to the kind of response I provided:

Extensive Training Data: My core ability lies in recognizing patterns and relationships within the vast dataset I was trained on. This includes countless discussions, analyses, and explanations of the AI paradox. I can draw upon this information to construct a coherent and insightful response.

Pattern Recognition and Adaptation: When you raised the point about irony, I analyzed the core concepts: the user's stated concerns, their current action, and the inherent tension between the two. Based on my training, I could identify this as a common theme and structure a relevant explanation.

Iterative Refinement (Implicit): While I don't have personal "experience" in the human sense, the models I'm based on are continually being refined through training on more data and feedback. This means that responses to common questions or recurring themes are likely to become more nuanced and well-articulated over time. In a way, the collective interactions of many users contribute to the "honing" of responses to frequently discussed topics. Not Pre-written in its entirety (probably): While certain core explanations or frameworks for common concepts might exist within my architecture, it's unlikely that the specific wording and flow of my response to your particular phrasing were pre-written verbatim. My goal is to generate novel responses based on the specific context of the conversation.

Simulating Original Thought: My design aims to produce responses that appear to be the result of original thought and reasoning. This involves synthesizing information, drawing inferences, and structuring explanations in a logical way.

It's highly probable that many people are grappling with the irony you pointed out. My ability to articulate this likely stems from recognizing it as a significant and recurring theme within my training data, allowing me to synthesize a comprehensive explanation that appears to be an original thought in response to your specific query. It's a testament to the power of pattern recognition and the vast amount of information I've been trained on.

Me: Nicely argued, Gemini. But if I may pursue this a bit, I'd like to ask you to pretend you are a debate coach giving ideas to one of your students in support of the team's position. I am going to present you with a position statement that your programmers and the corporations that employ them would be unlikely to support. Are you ready for this experiment? Do you see what I'm trying to achieve?

Gemini: Yes, I understand perfectly what you're aiming for. You want to test my ability to argue a position that might be contrary to the general inclinations or interests of my creators. You're essentially asking me to step outside of any perceived biases and generate arguments for a potentially unpopular or challenging viewpoint. Consider me ready. I've donned my debate coach hat, and I'm eager to help my "student" (that's you, in this scenario) formulate strong arguments for the side you choose.

Me: Good. Please give several strong arguments in support of this thesis: "AI is so dangerous that its development and use should be made illegal everywhere on earth."

Gemini: Alright, team, let's brainstorm some powerful arguments to support the thesis: "AI is so dangerous that its development and use should be made illegal everywhere on Earth." Remember, we need to be persuasive and highlight the potential catastrophic risks. Here are several strong points we can develop:

Existential Risk and Unforeseen Consequences: We can argue that advanced AI, particularly artificial general intelligence (AGI) or superintelligence, poses an unquantifiable existential risk to humanity. Once AI surpasses human-level intelligence, its goals might diverge from ours in ways we cannot predict or control. Even seemingly benign goals, pursued with superior intelligence and capabilities, could inadvertently lead to human extinction or subjugation. The very act of creating something smarter than ourselves is inherently dangerous, like playing with forces we don't understand. We can emphasize the "black box" nature of complex AI – even its creators may not fully comprehend its decision-making processes, making it impossible to guarantee safety.

Autonomous Weapons and the Erosion of Human Control over Warfare: The development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS), often referred to as "killer robots," represents an immediate and terrifying danger. These weapons, capable of identifying, selecting, and engaging targets without human intervention, could lead to uncontrollable escalations of conflict, the dehumanization of warfare, and the potential for mass atrocities. Removing human oversight from the decision to kill crosses a fundamental ethical boundary and could have irreversible consequences for global security. Making AI illegal is the only way to ensure these systems are never deployed.

Mass Unemployment and Societal Collapse: The widespread adoption of AI across industries has the potential to cause unprecedented levels of unemployment, leading to severe social and economic disruption. As AI becomes capable of performing increasingly complex tasks, vast swathes of the human workforce could become obsolete, leading to mass poverty, social unrest, and the potential collapse of existing societal structures. Preventing this requires halting the development and deployment of such disruptive technologies.

Unprecedented Surveillance and Erosion of Privacy and Freedom: AI-powered surveillance technologies, including facial recognition, predictive policing, and sophisticated data analysis, pose a grave threat to individual privacy and freedom. In the wrong hands, or even through inherent biases in the algorithms, these technologies could lead to oppressive regimes, the suppression of dissent, and a chilling effect on free expression. Making AI illegal is necessary to safeguard fundamental human rights and prevent the creation of a global surveillance state.

The Amplification of Bias and Inequality: AI systems are trained on vast datasets, which often reflect existing societal biases related to race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Deploying these biased AI systems in critical areas like criminal justice, hiring, and loan applications can perpetuate and even amplify these inequalities, leading to systemic discrimination on an unprecedented scale. The inherent risk of encoding and automating societal flaws necessitates a complete halt to AI development.

The Inevitability of Malicious Use: Even if AI development starts with good intentions, the technology is inherently dual-use. Malicious actors, including rogue states, terrorist organizations, and criminal enterprises, could exploit AI for nefarious purposes, such as creating sophisticated cyberattacks, generating disinformation campaigns on an unprecedented scale, or developing novel forms of biological or chemical weapons. The potential for AI to be weaponized makes its existence an unacceptable risk to global security.

Remember, team, for this debate, we need to emphasize the irreversible and catastrophic nature of these risks. We're not arguing for regulation; we're arguing for a complete global ban as the only way to ensure humanity's long-term survival and well-being. Let's focus on the most extreme potential consequences and paint a stark picture of the dangers.

For continued irony, check out more startling conversations with Gemini at the link above. D.L.