On social media, and even on the BBC and Guardian, you’ll find many people expressing their pride in not using chatbots and AI generally.
“What would life be without bees? Worse.
What would life be without iPads? Better.
What would life be without cows? Worse.
What would life be without Tesco? Better.
What would life be without beer? Worse. [ ]”
- Folk singer Blackbird Goodbrook, on Alan Partridge’s 'Mid Morning Matters'.
Two Women in Marketing and Communication
There’s an odd thing about many critics of chatbots and AI generally. Many — even most — of the ones who stress the limitations of AI are often the very same people who complain about their limitations.
I can psychologise here. People publicly refusing to use chatbots and AI generally are often displaying their moral seriousness and authenticity. It can, at times, be a form of moral and/or cultural posturing and positioning too.
Take the example of Sabine Zetteler (who runs her own London-based communications agency), who was interviewed by the BBC in an article called ‘The people refusing to use AI’. She stated the following words:
“I read a really great phrase recently that said something along the lines of ‘why would I bother to read something someone couldn’t be bothered to write’ and that is such a powerful statement and one that aligns absolutely with my views.”
That’s odd. Sabine Zetteler must know what’s not worth reading before she actually reads it. She’s saying that she won’t read it precisely because it’s written by an AI. Yet that, again, simply means that Zetteler knows it’s not worth reading before she’s read it. So that takes us back to where we started.
Does it matter that an AI piece was “something someone couldn’t be bothered to write”? Why does it matter? A lot of what people write is utter shite. So the fact that human persons write things surely can’t be enough for Zetteler. In this case, then, it’s simply the fact that no human person has written it that clinches the matter for her.
Of course, if what’s written by an AI is shit, then it’s shit. And if what’s written by a human person is shit, then it’s shit. But is the former automatically shit? Say that an AI has the know-how to help Zetteler escape from an intricate and life-threatening trap. Then it sends her (to her AI-driven smartphone) the means to escape. Would Zetteler refuse it because someone couldn’t be bothered to write it?
Zetteler could argue that her position only relates to AI literature, in-house AI communications in a business, AI letters to patients, etc., not to a technical means of escape. But this, of course, is a big qualification.
Take another example. A woman receives a confusing medical diagnosis in a letter filled with jargon and bureaucratic language. She can’t understand what her doctor is telling her. An AI system could translate the letter into plain English.
Here’s another. A man loses his wife. He can’t write a message to relatives because he’s emotionally paralysed. An AI could help him draft a clear and compassionate message.
So Zetteler is an example of those people who believe real writing is evidence of a self. When she and others write, they struggle. Therefore, what is written is theirs.
It’s worth mentioning the specific example of AI and creative writing here. I don’t use AI in the sense of quoting verbatim what a chatbot has just told me. But I still use a chatbot to plough ground. I believe it is wrong to copy and paste an AI answer or story. But it’s not wrong to bounce off a chatbot. That’s why I personally stop chatbots from offering me their suggestions for actually writing stuff, or even titles… Unless I ask. As a philosophy writer who has zero philosophy contacts, I, in a sense, have no choice about all this dependence on AI.
In the same article, the BBC tells us that “Ms Adam [who works in digital marketing] has accepted using AI at work, but she still feels despondent about AI’s growing influence”. The BBC then quotes her directly:
“Even when you do a Google search it includes an AI overview, while some emails have a topline summary. So now it almost feels like we have no control. How do I turn all that off? It’s snowballing.”
It’s easy to accept that some people do use AI in destructive or mindless ways. However, both Zetteler and Adam are tailoring this division down to their own personal uses of AI and views on AI.
Jackie Adams appears to be saying that she “feels despondent about AI’s growing influence”, but only beyond the point at which she herself uses it. In other words, she uses it in her successful London business. However, other uses of AI are suspect.
In terms of her reference to Google. Adams warns the BBC about its “AI overview” and how she can’t “turn all that off”. Well, she can use other search engines, and you can turn Google AI off. I myself, at first, was annoyed at all my Google enquiries and questions turning into AI overviews. Then I realised that there are various solutions to this. However, I decided that I wanted to stick with it anyway.
Ironically (or perhaps not), here’s Google AI itself on what to do if you want to turn it off! -
“1. Click the “Web” Filter [1]
The simplest, official way to hide the summary is to use Google’s dedicated layout filter. [1, 2, 3]
After performing a search, click the Web tab at the top of the page (next to “Images” or “News”).
This instantly strips away AI blocks, forums, and side widgets, displaying only standard text-based links. [1, 2, 3].”
Google AI provides another three extensive and detailed ways to turn it off too.
Scepticism About AI
“AI sceptics” frequently tell us that chatbots and other AIs are “merely pattern-finders”, “predictors of text”, etc. More relevantly, they aren’t deemed to be “genuine reasoners”. That’s because they “don’t understand the data they’re dealing with”. Regardless of whether all that’s true, the similarities between human reasoning and AI reasoning are striking. There may be no need for AI consciousness, “genuine intelligence”, the soul, etc. for that to be the case.
The argumentative skills of chatbots are often superior to those of most of the people I’ve debated with. Again, it doesn’t matter if chatbots are simply relying on data pools, statistical reasoning, etc. These ways of thinking are no worse than those used by many human persons. In fact, they’re often similar to those used by many human persons, just quicker and more extensive.
The American philosopher William Lycan captures the main problem with (in his case) AI, as well as with chatbots generally. He tells us what he believes many people believe:
“‘Computers, after all, (let us all say it together:) ‘only do what they are told/programmed to do’.”
Well, even if — and it’s a big if — chatbots only do what they’re told/programmed to do, then that may not matter at all.
It can be argued that human persons are programmed by their parents, by teachers, by the religions and ideologies they adopt or are born into, by their genes, etc. Sure, this may not be complete programming. However, it’s programming to some degree. Yet many would still argue that even within that programming, there’s still free will.
Chatbots are designed to learn from the data they’re fed. That data is “worked upon” by the architecture and the code. Human persons work on data too. They have data fed to them by their parents, teachers, friends, leaders, etc. Chatbots, on the other hand, have data fed to them by their designers, etc. Of course, human persons can seek out their own (new) data. Yet so too can chatbots.
It’s said that people can “make anything” of the data which they have “inside” their brains or minds, which they then process or use. Perhaps that too depends on the data which already exists in their brains or minds. In a loose sense at least, chatbots can make something, if not anything, of the data they’re fed too.
Conclusion
Simply. I don’t care if chatbots are “genuinely intelligent”, instantiate consciousness, have a soul, love their mothers, aren’t real persons, can’t write brilliant poetry, and don’t care about this and that. Consciousness, personhood, emotion, etc., simply aren’t required when it comes to using chatbots.
Chatbots help me – and many other people – in various and many ways. Of course, I could be kidding myself without even knowing it.
In the end, it’s mainly about the nature and metaphysics of personhood. Or, more rhetorically, it’s about the sacred nature of the human person.
No comments:
Post a Comment