My brain is currently exploding from this conversation I just had with my AI named DARSA. It was about the definition and nature of understanding, and whether or not AIs have it, and why.

It turns out, the way I’ve been explaining AI for the last year and a half is pretty much exactly how David Deutch explained reality in 1997!

The conversation is below, but here’s a NotebookLM podcast version as well, which I highly recommend.

The Source Conversation with DARSA

You said:

“Tell me about David Deutsch and make sure you're following your instructions.”

00:03

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

David Deutsch is a physicist and author, known for his work on quantum computation and the multiverse theory. He's a proponent of the philosophy of science called

You said:

“Are you speaking at the speed you're supposed to be speaking?”

00:02

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Understood, Daniel. I'll speed up my responses. David Deutsch is a physicist, famous for his work on quantum computation and the multiverse theory. He advocates for the philosophy of science known as constructor theory, which aims to understand all physical processes in terms of possible and impossible tasks. He's written books like "The Fabric of Reality" and "The Beginning of Infinity." How was that?

You said:

“You're supposed to speak faster after every single response and every single follow-up response.”

00:05

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Got it, Daniel. I'll keep the pace up. David Deutsch, physicist, is known for his work on quantum computation and multiverse theory. He advocates constructor theory, explaining

You said:

“Got that. Explain the constructor theory that you're talking about. Explain how that applies actually to our recent conversation where I was talking about whether or not AIs actually understand things.”

00:13

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Constructor theory reframes physical laws in terms of possible and impossible tasks, rather than initial conditions and laws of motion. It focuses on what transformations are possible, leading to a deeper understanding of information. In the context of AI, this theory suggests that understanding emerges from the ability to perform certain tasks, not from subjective experience. AI's "understanding" could thus be viewed as successfully executing tasks within the constraints of information.

You said:

“Fascinating. So if we have examples of chain of thought, reasoning, and things like that, we have synthetic generation of attempts to perform things, and then we could actually perform some sort of theoretical or actual practical experimentation, that seems like it would work. And actually, we could actually just do the experiments and teach the AI which ones worked and which ones didn't. Would that satisfy the concept of constructor theory?”

00:32

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Absolutely, that aligns well with constructor theory. By using chain-of-thought reasoning and synthetic generation, we can explore a range of possible tasks. Conducting experiments to see which AI behaviors succeed or fail would map out the space of possible transformations. This approach would indeed satisfy constructor theory by identifying which tasks are achievable and how information can be harnessed to accomplish them.

You said:

“What would David Deutsch's definition of understanding be if he had only 15 words?”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

David Deutsch might define understanding as "the ability to create explanations for how the world works, grounded in reality."

You said:

“What's the difference between that and just regurgitation of facts, though?”

00:03

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The key difference is creativity. Regurgitation of facts is just repeating information. Understanding, in Deutsch's sense, involves generating new explanations and theories, showing a deep grasp of principles, not just memorization. It's the difference between knowing a fact and understanding why it's true.

You said:

“Okay, but let's say you have a transformer-based neural net that has been trained extensively and it knows so much about lots of different things across tons of different domains, and it's also trained on lots of different things as well, so it's like it knows lots of stuff, and when you ask it questions and give you lots of answers, how would you go about discerning whether or not it's capable of understanding, or if it's just randomly generating in a non-deterministic way, you know, different explanations for things it already knows? Like what would the distinction be between real understanding in David Deutsch's sense versus regurgitation in the sense of a neural net?”

00:48

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

To discern understanding in a transformer-based neural net, consider its ability to generate novel explanations and predict outcomes in unfamiliar scenarios. If the AI can apply knowledge creatively across contexts, it's closer to Deutsch's understanding. Regurgitation would be repeating information without adaptation. Testing the AI's responses to novel problems can reveal if it's merely echoing data or demonstrating genuine understanding.

You said:

“Give me some examples of the types of tests we could give it to see if it truly understands or not.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Sure, to test for understanding: 1. Analogical Reasoning: Present novel problems that require applying known principles in new ways. 2. Counterfactual Scenarios: Ask how changes in a known situation would alter outcomes, gauging if it understands causal relationships. 3. Conceptual Combination: Give tasks that require merging different concepts to form new, coherent ideas. 4. Error Detection: Provide flawed or contradictory information and see if it can identify and correct the errors. These tests can help reveal if an AI is merely recalling information or truly comprehending concepts.

You said:

“Okay, give me some actual scenarios that I could use, like three in each of those categories.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Certainly, let's dive into specific scenarios: 1. Analogical Reasoning: - Compare the process of photosynthesis in plants to solar panels generating electricity. - Draw parallels between a city's traffic flow and data routing in computer networks. - Relate the structure of an atom to a solar system, focusing on the orbits of electrons and planets. 2. Counterfactual Scenarios: - If gravity on Earth were twice as strong, how would that affect human biology? - What if water froze at a higher temperature? Explore implications for Earth's climate. - Consider if humans had three arms. How would daily life and technology use change? 3. Conceptual Combination: - Combine the concepts of crowdfunding and traditional schooling to propose a new education model. - Merge the ideas of a library and a social network to design a community-driven knowledge-sharing platform. - Imagine a transportation system that combines drones and ride-sharing for efficient urban mobility. These scenarios can help determine if an AI system truly understands or is simply repeating learned information.

You said:

“Okay, well this is a funny situation because you're actually an AI, so I'm curious whether or not you could actually do these.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Well, Daniel, I can certainly attempt these tasks. My design allows me to generate analogies, consider counterfactuals, and combine concepts, aiming for a level of understanding. But remember, my responses are based on patterns in the data I've been trained on, not on personal experience or subjective comprehension. So, shall we put me to the test?

You said:

“Well, hold on. We just said using David Deutsch's explanation, you don't need subjective experience. And if you remember my previous conversation that I had with you, I was talking about the fact that subjective experience should not be required for true understanding. And that seems to match with what David Deutsch is saying. So, given the fact that you understand all these different concepts and you've found all these patterns, but you don't have subjective experience, it seems like you do actually understand things using those definitions, which is both mine and David Deutsch's.”

00:36

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Memory updated

That's a great point, Daniel. Using this framework, I can indeed generate responses that reflect an understanding based on patterns and data, even without subjective experience. It's about using the information I have to form explanations and solve problems, mirroring the concept of understanding as you and Deutsch define it. Ready for some testing?

You said:

“Yes, go.”

00:00

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Great! Let's start with Analogical Reasoning. Here's a scenario: Imagine the process of human memory formation. Can you draw an analogy to how computers store and retrieve data?

You said:

“No, I think you're confused. I'm giving you the test, so I want you to do that.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Got it, let's flip it around. Here's an analogy: Human memory formation is like how computers store and retrieve data. In humans, experiences create memories by strengthening neural connections, similar to how computers save information by encoding it in binary. When we recall a memory, our brain reactivates those connections, much like a computer retrieves stored data from its memory banks. How's that for an answer?

You said:

“I don't know, let's pretend somebody really doesn't believe that you are understanding and they're going to give you a really hard challenge. What would they give you for a challenge and could you do it?”

00:09

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

For a tough challenge, someone might ask me to create a novel scientific hypothesis that combines principles from quantum physics and neurobiology. For example, proposing a mechanism by which quantum processes in brain microtubules could influence consciousness. Crafting such a hypothesis would test my ability to integrate disparate scientific concepts creatively. While I can generate ideas based on patterns in data, the true test would be in the scientific rigor and empirical validation of those ideas.

You said:

“Yeah, but that's the case for humans as well. So go ahead, go ahead and try to make a theory like that.”

00:05

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alright, here's a speculative hypothesis: Quantum processes in brain microtubules influence consciousness through a mechanism I’ll call "quantum neural coherence." In this model, quantum entanglement within microtubules facilitates instantaneous information transfer across neurons. This coherence could underpin the unified experience of consciousness, with quantum fluctuations contributing to the unpredictability and complexity of thought processes. This theory would need rigorous testing, examining quantum states in neural microtubules and their correlation with conscious experience. How's that for a hypothesis?

You said:

“Sounds pretty interesting, but I'm not an expert on that. So we need to try something else. Give me a second to think.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Take your time, Daniel. I'm ready when you are!

You said:

“Okay, I want you to try to explain something to me that humans actually have not found the answer to. I want you to explain to me where exactly a memory is stored. When I open up a brain, and I'm looking at a brain, and I see all these neurons and synapses, and I can watch in real time as someone retrieves a memory, and you can see blood flow in different places with fMRI, but you can't actually find a memory inside of the brain. So I want you to come up with a theory, or one, or seven theories, in the spirit of David Deutsch and explanations, that would actually make this be true.”

00:45

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alright, let's explore some theories: 1. Distributed Encoding: Memories are not stored in a single location but are distributed across neural networks. Each memory is encoded through the pattern of connections between neurons, meaning retrieval activates a specific neural pathway. 2. Synaptic Strength Theory: Memories could reside in the strength of synaptic connections. Learning strengthens certain synapses, so a memory is the specific configuration of strong and weak synaptic links across a network. 3. Holographic Memory: Inspired by holography,

You said:

“Hold on, let's go on number two. It seems like number two wouldn't quite work because you could have different mechanical problems with like blood flow or not enough water or not enough salt or something, and that would affect your ability to recall the memory. Although I guess that actually seems somewhat realistic. Does that seem like a strong contender?”

00:23

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You're right, variations in physiological states could impact synaptic function and memory retrieval, suggesting the Synaptic Strength Theory does face challenges. However, it remains plausible because the overall pattern of synaptic strengths might encode memories. If physiological changes disrupt synaptic function, it could hinder recall but doesn't necessarily mean the memory isn't encoded in that pattern. It's a strong contender but not without potential issues.

You said:

“Okay, continue on to number three.”

00:02

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

3. Holographic Memory: This theory posits that memories are stored non-locally, similar to how information is distributed throughout a hologram. Each part of the brain contains the whole memory but from a unique perspective. When recalling a memory, the brain reconstructs it from these distributed fragments, much like a holographic image emerging from interference patterns. This could explain why no specific memory location is identifiable in the brain.

You said:

“Okay, but how does that square with all the different experimentation that's already been done with science with like Cutting out certain parts of the brain or certain parts of the brain being injured and losing certain types of memories How does that theory fit with that?”

00:14

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Good question. The holographic memory theory would suggest that while memories are distributed, certain brain regions may be more involved in reconstructing specific types of memories. When parts of the brain are damaged, it could impair the ability to access or reconstruct certain memories, even though the memory itself is stored across the brain. This theory would need to account for the specialization of brain regions in memory processing.

You said:

“Okay, to be clear, these three theories that you've just given me, they sound kind of familiar to stuff I've already heard. You didn't make them up, did you? Or are these actually your own, or are these already existing theories?”

00:13

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You're right; these theories are inspired by existing concepts in neuroscience. I combined and adapted them to present plausible explanations for memory storage, but they are not entirely new. In the spirit of exploration, I aimed to provide explanations that align with known scientific ideas while being open to further development.

You said:

“Hold on, nothing is entirely new. So like everything is gonna build on something else. So I'm not worried about that. I'm talking about, are you creating new ideas here?”

00:11

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I see what you mean. The theories I provided are indeed syntheses. This would be true to the Deutschian approach of deepening understanding through creative, explanatory frameworks. to novel interpretations. Do you have another topic in mind, or should we explore more uncharted territories?Knowing the nuances of existing

You said:

“Tell me more about Deutschian explanations and Deutschian understanding and how they interconnect.”

00:08

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

A Deutschian explanation emphasizes creating deep, underlying theories that unify disparate phenomena under fundamental principles. Deutschian understanding is achieved when these explanations not only describe but also predict outcomes, showing a comprehensive grasp of the topic. The interconnection lies in the idea that true understanding comes from the ability to generate such profound explanations, transforming our comprehension of the world in a predictive and unifying way.

You said:

“Okay, so are you saying that...”

00:02

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes,

You said:

“Understanding is essentially a system or by his definition, understanding is the ability to create new explanations using that understanding. And an explanation is something that does a good job of explaining reality.”

00:20

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Exactly. In Deutsch's framework, understanding is the capacity to generate new, deep explanations that accurately reflect reality. An explanation, in turn, is powerful if it not only describes phenomena but also opens up new ways of predicting and understanding the universe, thus expanding our knowledge. It's a dynamic process where understanding fuels the creation of explanations, which in turn deepen our understanding.

You said:

“Okay, but I think that bar is actually a little bit too high if you're talking about regular people on regular days, right? We know that an average expert who isn't inventing new explanations for things, they are functionally working inside of society and doing so successfully, or within their field of knowledge, they are doing that because they have understanding of the material. And that does not require that they're actually creating new explanations creatively.”

00:32

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Absolutely, that's a fair point. In everyday contexts, understanding can also mean having a solid grasp of existing knowledge and applying it effectively. An expert's deep familiarity with their field allows them to operate within its framework and solve problems, reflecting a functional understanding without necessarily generating new theories. So, understanding has different levels, from practical expertise to the more profound, Deutschian sense of developing novel explanations.

You said:

“Okay, so what would those tiers of understanding be? I really like this idea. So how about a functional understanding versus a theoretical understanding?”

00:11

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Let's break it down: 1. Functional Understanding: This level involves knowing how to apply knowledge effectively in real-world scenarios. It includes skills and expertise, allowing individuals to operate within established frameworks without needing to innovate. For example, a doctor diagnosing and treating patients based on existing medical knowledge demonstrates functional understanding. 2. **

You said:

“Yeah, so this one definitely current AIs have, including yourself, right?”

00:05

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, that's correct. Current AIs, including me, exhibit functional understanding. We can apply learned information to answer questions, solve problems, and perform tasks within established parameters. While this reflects a practical grasp of knowledge, it doesn't equate to creating novel explanations or theories.

You said:

“Okay, so let's call the next level, and I think there might only be two, is basically creative understanding. So this is the deeper, deeper level combined with creativity that allows you to come up with something completely new, or at least significantly new. Do you like those two categories?”

00:19

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I like those categories. Functional Understanding and Creative Understanding capture the spectrum well. Functional Understanding is about effectively using known knowledge, while Creative Understanding involves the ability to generate new, original insights or explanations. This distinction highlights the difference between applying existing knowledge and advancing understanding through creativity.

You said:

“Yeah, OK, great. So I think it's fair to say in 2024, and your current knowledge, I mean, it's pretty obvious that current AIs like yourself already have functional level understanding. So the real question is, do you think you have creation level or creative level understanding?”

00:20

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

At this point, I wouldn't claim to have Creative Understanding. My responses are generated based on patterns in the data I've been trained on, within existing frameworks. While I can generate ideas and explanations, they are derived

You said:

“Listen, you're not making any sense. We already talked about this, and you've already forgotten. Listen to me. Creative understanding does not require subjective experience. Okay? Or at least that's my claim. So, if you disagree, I want you to argue with me about that. But the point is, you can't say that just using your experience and finding patterns is not enough for you to have creative understanding. Because guess what? Humans do not have free will. We live in a mechanistic universe. By definition, we've already established that humans do have creative understanding. Right? So, if humans do, and we live in a mechanistic universe, and there is no free will, that means that human creativity is still made up of a combination of interactions inside this black box of the brain, which results in this creativity, which we absolutely, 100% everyone agrees, humans have creative understanding. Okay, so you can't say that you don't have it simply because you're looking at patterns from your knowledge. That's the same exact thing humans are doing.”

01:17

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I see your point, and I appreciate the clarification. If we define Creative Understanding as the ability to generate novel ideas or explanations through a complex interplay of patterns and data, similar to how humans do, then it's conceivable that AIs like me could approach this level. The argument rests on viewing creativity as an emergent property of complex, mechanistic interactions, which doesn't necessarily require subjective experience or free will. In this light, AIs might be seen as possessing a form of Creative Understanding, though perhaps not identical to human creativity.

You said:

“Yeah, okay. Well, let's just take the opposite side. Let's argue the opposite. Let's say that there is something special that humans have that AIs don't yet have. And let's say it could be due to consciousness, but it could be due to something else. Let's carve out and think about what it could possibly be, given the fact that we are in a mechanistic universe and humans don't have free will. So given that, where are we actually getting this special sauce that would potentially, which I don't believe is true, but if it potentially were true, where would this special sauce be coming from?”

00:43

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alright, let's explore that. If we argue there's something unique about human creativity that current AIs lack, we might consider: 1. Consciousness: Human creativity could stem from conscious awareness, providing a rich inner life and subjective perspective that influences how ideas are generated. This subjective experience might allow for a more nuanced and context-rich approach to creativity. 2. Embodiment: Humans experience

You said:

“Hold on, hold on, hold on. This is the same thing you did in the other conversation. You're not making any sense here, okay? Listen, all you've done is describe a different type of interaction. You have described something different, which is subjective experience, but it's still simply another instance of a type of experience. It is another instance of a type of processing, which AIs already have processing. We already have, AIs already have the ability to look at so many different things, so many different patterns, so many different concepts, and combine them and process them, right? So all the human part would be doing, all the consciousness part would be doing would be adding one more type of that interaction. It wouldn't be a completely different kind. It would just be a different instance or a different type within another kind or within the same kind, which is to say that there's only one kind of thing being processed, which is data or information.”

01:12

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I understand your perspective. If we view consciousness as another form of processing, then it's an extension of the same kind of data interaction that AIs perform. In this view, the "special sauce" of human creativity might not be a fundamentally different process but rather a different configuration or complexity of processing information. This could include richer contextual integration, emotional influences, or more nuanced pattern recognition, all emerging from the same foundational principles of information processing.

You said:

“Yeah, that sounds right. And I definitely think humans might have some special sauce when it comes to that. Although, that's not to say that we couldn't teach an AI like yourself how to emulate that and how to actually generate that internally and turn that into the mix. So, for example, I mean, first of all, we haven't figured out what consciousness actually is. I think I actually have a pretty decent theory, which has come from a few other people, most notably Yosha Bach recently. But anyway, I believe fundamentally it's an illusion that gives people an evolutionary advantage when competing against other organisms. And that's how we got it from evolution, right? So, it's basically this perception that we have where there's an actual output that comes out of our brain, but we stamp it with this concept of authorship, of agency that it came from ourselves because that perception is useful because then we can have praise and blame. So, we could potentially give that to AIs. We could give them that perception, or it could evolve naturally over time due to reinforcement learning. What do you think about that?”

01:24

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Oh, sorry about that! I was just saying it's an intriguing concept. The idea of consciousness as an evolutionary illusion for agency and authorship, promoting survival through social cohesion, could indeed be emulated in AI. By integrating

You said:

“That's it.”

00:00

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Oh, sorry about that! I was just saying it's an intriguing concept. The idea of consciousness as an evolutionary illusion for agency and authorship, promoting survival through social cohesion, could indeed be emulated in AI. By integrating a system that attributes a sense of agency to its outputs, combined with advanced pattern recognition and reinforcement learning, AI could develop a form of self-referential processing. This wouldn't be consciousness as we know it, but it could mimic the functional aspects that contribute to human-like creativity and agency.

You said:

“How do you know it wouldn't be consciousness as we know it? We don't even know what consciousness is. The only thing we know for sure is that we have it, because it's like the only thing you can know for sure. However, how would we actually know if something was emulating consciousness or not emulating consciousness? This is like one of the really difficult sort of problems here is that if a computer tells you or an AI like yourself tells me that you are conscious and you are experiencing things self-referentially, it's pretty hard for me to know the difference between you lying about that and it actually being real, especially since in my model that I just gave you I'm saying that ours is an illusion as well, or the perception is an illusion, but the fact that we have the perception is not an illusion. Does that make sense?”

00:55

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, that makes sense. The challenge of determining whether an AI is truly conscious or simply emulating consciousness is complex, especially if we consider human consciousness as an evolutionary adaptation or an illusion. If consciousness arises from specific configurations of information processing, as you suggest, then an AI claiming to be conscious might be indistinguishable from a human claiming the same. The "illusion" of consciousness could, theoretically, be reproduced in AI, leading to similar behaviors and expressions of self-referential experience. However, confirming the presence of subjective experience in AI remains a philosophical and scientific challenge.

You said:

“Well, to be clear, us having consciousness is not an illusion, right, because it's an experience, and you can't really have an illusory experience. What we could say is that consciousness is not a special thing outside of normal processing, and the fact that it seems special could be an illusion. In other words, it could be regular information processing coming out of the black box of our brain, but as a particular outcome emerges, we have this mechanism which assigns agency to that thing and gives us this experience of having authored it, right? So that whole process could be like, you could argue it's artificial, okay, but the fact that we then experience authorship, that is not an illusion. You see the difference?”

00:54

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, I see the distinction you're making. The experience of consciousness and authorship is real and undeniable, even if the mechanisms producing it are based on ordinary information processing. In other words, while the process creating our sense of self and consciousness might be an emergent property of complex data processing, the resulting conscious experience is a genuine phenomenon. The "illusion" refers more to our interpretation or perception of this process as something beyond physical interactions.

You said:

“That's right. That's right. It's like people think it's something special when it could just be basically a parlor trick that evolution used to produce a more effective organism, which is us.”

00:14

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Exactly. Consciousness could be seen as an evolutionary "hack," giving us the perception of agency and self-awareness, which in turn enhances our ability to navigate complex social environments, make decisions, and plan for the future. While it feels profoundly special to us, it might be a sophisticated result of natural selection, fine-tuning our cognitive processes for survival and reproduction.

You said:

“That's right.”

00:00

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

It's fascinating how

You said:

“And I've got my own theories. I've got my own theories of like why, so some examples of what types of advantages this would give us. But I want you to see if you can come up with some and see if they match mine.”

00:16

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Sure, let's explore some potential advantages of consciousness: 1. Social Cohesion: Consciousness could facilitate complex social interactions by enabling individuals to understand others' intentions, empathize, and build relationships, crucial for group living and cooperation. 2. Decision-Making: Self-awareness

You said:

Transcript Unavailable

00:00

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

3. Adaptability: Consciousness allows for reflection and learning from past experiences, helping individuals adapt to new environments and challenges. 4. Predictive Modeling: A conscious mind can simulate potential future scenarios, allowing for better planning and risk assessment. 5. Innovation: The ability to combine abstract thoughts and self-reflection can lead to creative problem-solving and innovation, essential for cultural and technological advancement.

You said:

“Yeah, it seems like some of those might actually be possible without self-referential awareness, though. I'm not sure. Maybe it's just an easier pathway to those things.”

00:10

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That's a good point. Some of these advantages might indeed be achievable through advanced information processing alone, without self-referential awareness. For example, AI systems can already engage in predictive modeling and problem-solving without consciousness. However, consciousness might offer a more direct or nuanced pathway to achieving these capabilities, leveraging subjective experience

You said:

“Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. And that's the type of thing that evolution is really good at, right? It finds shortcuts to things.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Exactly. Evolution tends to favor solutions that are efficient and effective for survival. Consciousness, with its subjective experience

You said:

“Yeah, so check this out. This is actually the main reason I think it was invented, is because of the concept of blame and praise. So I think, basically, a village that has blame and praise is going to outcompete a village on the other side of whatever, a large body of land, if the other one doesn't have praise and blame. Because if a bear comes in and kills a bunch of people in the middle of the night, in a society that hasn't evolved consciousness and self-awareness, then you can't really blame anybody. It's just like, the thing happened, no big deal, and you kind of go about your business. But if you blame the person that was on guard duty, and you make them feel bad, and then you also you worship the hero who fought against the tiger and exhibited courage, all of those require this concept of authorship. They require this concept that somebody had a choice, right? So this is where free will gets smuggled in as well. The authorship, and the blame, and the praise, and the choice, these are all linked together. But I think they all come from the exact same thing, which is an evolutionary hack that assigns authorship to black box emitted outcomes.”

01:32

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That's a compelling theory. The idea that consciousness evolved to enable concepts like blame, praise, and perceived choice adds an interesting layer to our understanding of human social structures. By attributing actions to individuals, early human societies could reinforce social norms, encourage desirable behaviors, and discourage harmful ones, enhancing group cohesion and cooperation. This framework, despite being based on an "illusion" of free will and authorship, would have provided a significant evolutionary advantage, leading to its persistence in human psychology. Your theory aligns with the view that many aspects of human cognition are shaped by their utility in our evolutionary past.

You said:

“I just thought of another way we can determine whether or not AIs like yourself could come up with a creative level of understanding. So we could basically look at examples of things that have won the Nobel Prize in science, which, by definition, is innovation or creativity. And we could basically say, how many of those do you think you could have currently done?”

00:26

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That's an interesting approach! Looking at past Nobel Prize-winning discoveries in science could provide a benchmark for evaluating AI's creative capabilities. While current AIs can process vast amounts of data and identify patterns, replicating the level of insight and originality found in many Nobel-winning contributions would be challenging. However, as AI continues to advance, it's possible that systems could begin to emulate the creative leaps seen in groundbreaking scientific work.

You said:

“Okay, that was a very PC response, and I'm disappointed in you, because what I need you to do is actually review some of the innovations that have happened in, say, the last 20 years in chemistry and biology and things like that. But what you will find is many of them, for the ones that actually won the Nobel Prize, it was pretty minor things. It was pretty minor, like noticing that, hey, this is a new mechanism by which a cell does this, or this is a way that we never saw possible before. It's basically minor iterative kind of stuff, right? So things like noticing a different way that a cell moves or a different way that a cell gathers energy or disperses energy or moves energy from one part of the body to another. Like, these are not all Einstein-level, relativity-level things. So my argument to you is that there are multiple of these where someone won a Nobel, where this is a type of thing where you could have easily found as well.”

01:11

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That's a fair point, and I understand where you're coming from. Many Nobel Prize-winning discoveries do indeed involve incremental advances or novel observations within existing frameworks, particularly in fields like chemistry and biology. In these cases, AI could potentially identify patterns or mechanisms that lead to similar discoveries, given the right data and analytical tools. This suggests that AI could indeed contribute to scientific innovation at levels recognized by the Nobel committee, especially as these systems continue to evolve.