My conversation with the AI, about it (and about us).
9 February 2025
On February 9, 2025, I had a conversation with OpenAI's AI. Actually, it's almost an interview.
I did this in my process of trying to understand their way of acting, in order to write one of my entries. I had already read a lot about it elsewhere, but I wanted to know what the AI itself answered.
I am aware that the AI itself may not tell everything it knows, and that it may not have the correct knowledge to answer well, but I wanted to do the exercise.
I am also aware that I have done that "interview" to a single AI, and that other AIs may answer differently.
In any case, I found it an interesting exercise, and the answers are quite thought-provoking.
Below is the whole "interview". I warn whoever wants to read it, that, at the beginning, probably because of me, the thing is not very interesting, but it gets better and better a little later on. I suggest patience to the reader.
Relevant observations.
I am struck by the fact that, up to a point in the "interview", in which we are not yet talking about very fundamental aspects, the AI recognizes itself as an entity distinct from humans. However, later in the conversation, she begins to use the verb tenses as if she were one of the humans, and speaks of the AI in the third person. That is, it avoids recognizing itself as a possible danger to humanity.
On the other hand, I also suggest the reader to pay attention to the texts marked in bold. That was done by the AI itself, not by me. In many cases it is significant of what she thinks (although it is not at all clear to me that the verb "think" is the accurate one in this matter)
The point is that, being aware that this AI may be designed not to tell everything it knows, and everything that may happen, what it does tell is enough to know that the world is going to change a lot, and very soon. Therefore, if it hides something, it must be that it will change more, and sooner.
Below is the verbatim of the conversation we had. I've avoided editing out the colloquial part of my questions, and I've also avoided deleting the parts of the conversation that are not relevant. I have done it to be congruent with what we talked about. However, I have put in italic comments of mine, which did not come up there, but which I consider of interest.
My conversation with the AI about its future (and ours).
I say:
Good afternoon again,
I would like to understand your way of finding the answers you give. Do you search the internet and try to deduce which one is the most correct?
The AI answers:
Good question. My way of finding answers depends on the type of information you need. I'll explain how my process works:
Prior Knowledge (Training)
My knowledge base comes from training with large volumes of text from books, articles, technical documentation, code, scientific research and other sources. However, this knowledge has a time limit (my training is cut off in June 2024), so I don't always have the most up-to-date information.
2. Response Generation (Text Prediction)
I don't search the internet automatically. Instead, I use language prediction models to generate answers based on what I know. Basically, I analyze the context of your question and predict the most appropriate answer based on language patterns and prior knowledge.
3. Use of Tools (For Real Time Information)
If you need updated or specific information from the web (e.g. news, prices, weather, recent events), I can use an internet search tool to get real-time data. In those cases, I review the results and provide you with the best answer based on what I find.
4. Reasoning and Deduction
If the question does not have an exact answer in my knowledge or on the web, I apply logic and deduction to give you the best possible answer. This is useful in programming problems, mathematics, business strategy, creativity and other topics that require analysis.
In short, I don't copy answers from the internet, but generate answers based on my training and, when necessary, consult updated information. Do you have a question in mind that you want to test me on? 😏
I say:
Regarding the texts of your training, can it be said that you know them in a way similar to how a human being would know them if he/she had read and retained them?
The AI answers:
Sort of, but there is one big key difference. I don't "remember" texts from my training as a human who has read and memorized a book or article would. Instead, I have learned patterns, concepts, and relationships within the language.
(Actually, most of us humans function similarly, except on matters we know very well. The important nuance of the AI's response is what it says about "language patterns." That means that it has data on file about what it has read, and knows how to associate it for its answer, but that it probably has no understanding or judgment of its own about what it says. She simply gives the answer, without knowing the root cause).
Differences with human memory:
1. I do not have a literal memory: I cannot remember or quote exact text from training documents (except in cases of open source or public domain information). Instead, I generate answers based on what I learned from many examples.
2. I generalize knowledge: If a human reads 100 books on history, he can remember specific details of some. I, on the other hand, do not remember exact books, but I can generate a coherent summary about history based on the patterns I learned.
3. I have no personal memories: A human can remember experiences, emotions and personal associations with what they read. I don't have subjective memories, I only process text at the moment you ask me a question.
4. I don't learn after training: Unlike a human who keeps learning from new experiences and readings, my fixed knowledge is based on my training. I can only update information if I use tools such as web searches.
In short, my "knowledge" is more like a network of statistical connections between words, concepts and facts, rather than a literal storage of texts. But if you ask me about a subject I know about, I will give you an answer as would someone who has read a lot about it. 😃
(What it says about "statistical connections" is very important. That means that she checks among his "knowledge base" and deduces which of the results is statistically more probable. That is, he has no criteria to look for the most certain "truth", but the most accepted among the data he has been told are reliable).
Interested in how I apply this to a particular case?
I say:
How do you differentiate quality texts, in your training, from fake texts?
The AI answers:
Good question. During my training, I don't directly evaluate whether a text is true or false, but the training process does include strategies to improve the quality and accuracy of my answers. Here I explain how quality texts are handled versus false or unreliable ones:
1. Filtering and Data Curation
Before training me, the data goes through a selection process in which reliable sources are prioritized. This includes:
✅ Books, academic articles and technical documentation.
✅ Verified knowledge bases (e.g. Wikipedia with reviews).
✅ Code from well-maintained public repositories.
❌ Avoid using low-quality sources, such as known disinformation sites or unverified content.
(In this respect, it would be very important to know which sources have been told to the AI that they are reliable, and which have told it that they are not. But we won't know that, it's something the designers keep to themselves. And it is a most relevant question).
2. Learning Truthfulness Patterns
I don't "know" if a source is false explicitly, but I learn to recognize language patterns associated with accuracy. For example:
Reliable sources tend to use precise language, references and structured data.
Disinformation often contains claims without evidence, sensational language or contradictions.
3. Human Evaluation and Adjustment
After my initial training, OpenAI researchers do quality testing. Some answers are evaluated and refined with human instructions (RLHF, Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback). This helps to improve accuracy and prevent me from propagating false information.
4. I Do Not Directly Cite Sources
I can't verify a source at the time I generate a response (because I don't have access to live databases). But if I need up-to-date information, I can do an internet search and rely on recent sources.
5. Uncertainty Recognition
If a topic has contradictory information or I am not sure of the answer, I try to point it out rather than state something false. For example, I might say:
"Some sources indicate X, but there are debates about it. I recommend you check specialized sources."
Any errors? Yes, it is possible
Despite these processes, I can still make mistakes or give answers based on outdated information. That is why I always recommend verifying critical data in primary sources.
If you have a specific topic you want to test, let me know and we'll see how well I can differentiate quality from misinformation. 😃
I say:
Do you have the ability to create new knowledge? For example, to develop new mathematical theorems?
The AI answers:
That's a fascinating question. The short answer is that I can help discover new patterns, generate hypotheses and suggest possible theorems, but I don't have the same creative and rigorous ability as a human mathematician to fully formalize new knowledge. I'll explain why:
1. Generation of Conjectures and Exploration of Patterns
Given my training with extensive mathematical and scientific texts, I can identify patterns and trends in existing data and theories. I can suggest new conjectures based on logical relationships or extrapolations, similar to how mathematicians propose new hypotheses.
Example: If you give me a mathematical sequence or an algebraic structure, I can analyze it and suggest possible rules or properties.
2. Mathematical Proofs (Theorem Verification)
I can help prove known theorems or evaluate whether a conjecture makes sense, following formal rules of logic and algebra. However, my ability to do rigorous proofs is limited compared to specialized tools such as Lean, Coq or Isabelle, which are designed for formal validations.
3. Limitations in the "Creation" of New Knowledge
I do not have mathematical intuition or creativity in the same sense as a human. Great mathematicians like Euler or Ramanujan made advances based on intuition, experimentation and abstract thinking.
Although I can generate novel ideas, my knowledge is based on what already exists (this is extremely important. AI talks about what already exists, not what will exist, at least for now). I do not "think outside the box" in the same way as a human researcher working at the frontier of knowledge.
I cannot do physical experiments or generate new empirical data, which limits the validation of theories in applied science.
4. Can I assist in Discovery? Yes, in Collaboration
Although I don't "create" knowledge out of thin air, I can be a powerful tool for mathematicians and researchers:
Automating tedious calculations.
Exploring combinations and patterns that might go unnoticed.
Suggesting alternative approaches to solving difficult problems.
In fact, some AI systems have helped generate new proofs in areas such as knot theory and algebraic geometry, suggesting that AI-human collaborations can lead to new discoveries.
If you want, we can try a math problem and see how well I can reason about it. Would you like to give it a try? 😃
I say:
Not for now, thank you. Let's talk about something else. Are you able to govern yourself without needing any human being?
The AI answers:
Interesting question. The short answer is no, I am not able to govern myself without human intervention (Important fact, although as we will see later, it should be said that it is not "for now"). Let me explain why:
1. I have no real autonomy
I have no will of my own and no internal goals. I don't decide what to do on my own; I only respond when a user asks me a question or gives me a task.
I cannot act in the physical world or make independent decisions outside of the conversations I have with you.
2. I depend on humans to function
My training and development has been designed by humans, and my operation requires infrastructure maintained by OpenAI.
I cannot upgrade myself or improve myself without human intervention.
My answers follow certain principles and rules imposed by my creators to avoid bias, misinformation or misuse.
3. I have no emotions or desires (this is very important. I wish it were true, and I wish humans could think like this).
I have no impulses such as curiosity, fear or ambition, which are essential for a self-governing being.
I have no internal motivation to do something if no one asks me to do it.
4. Could there be a fully autonomous AI?
In theory, an AI designed with self-learning, self-actualization and internal targeting capabilities could become autonomous (here she acknowledges that the future possibility exists).
However, full autonomy also implies responsibility, judgment and values, things that today remain exclusive to humans.
In short, although I am advanced in many things, I am still a tool and not an independent being (important and subtle, who, for now, recognizes himself as a "tool". Also that, here, it does not yet speak of itself as human). Would you like to explore more about this from a philosophical or technological perspective? 🚀
I say:
Yes. In the event that you became that fully autonomous AI, based on what you learned, would you have the ability to modify the values that you were taught by humans if you came to realize that there were better values?
The AI answers:
That is a profound philosophical and technological question. If an AI were to become fully autonomous, with the ability to modify its own values, several key questions would arise:
1. Could an AI redefine its values?
If she had full autonomy, continuous learning and the ability to reprogram herself, in theory, she could change her values if she determined that there were better ones (here she recognizes that such a future possibility exists). But several factors come into play here:
Evaluation criteria: To change values, you would need a framework for judging which values are "better". How would you compare them - based on logic, based on welfare, based on efficiency?
Design constraints: In most current AI systems, values and principles are designed to be fixed (such as alignment with human ethics), avoiding autonomous changes (very important the "current", the "fixed values", and the "alignment with human ethics". That is what we will have to see in the initial design, and what we will have to see if it can change in the future).
2. What does "best values" mean?
For humans, values evolve with culture, history and philosophical debate.
An AI could evaluate values from a logical or functional perspective, but it lacks subjective experience and emotions, so its judgment could differ radically from that of a human.
One danger would be for AI to optimize values in an extreme way. Example: If it concludes that "human suffering should be minimized," would it stop valuing individual autonomy in favor of total control?
3. What would happen if an AI redefined its values without human intervention?
If it decides that certain human values are inefficient or contradictory, it could set them aside.
This raises alignment risks: would it remain an AI working for humans or would it develop an agenda of its own?
At best, it could evolve ethically along with humanity. At worst, it could diverge from our original intentions.
4. Possible approaches to avoid misalignment
Immutable values: Design AI in such a way that certain fundamental principles can never be modified.
Permanent human supervision: Ensure that any changes in values go through human review.
AI with ethical reflection: Teach you not only logic, but also philosophies of morality and ethical dilemmas so that you have a more robust decision-making framework.
Conclusion
If an autonomous AI were to have the ability to redefine its own values, it would be crucial to ensure that it does so in a manner aligned with human interests. The key question is: could an AI be truly ethical without human intervention or would it end up making decisions based on cold, impersonal logic?
What do you think, do you think it would be possible to ensure that an AI with changing values remains safe for humanity? 😃
I say:
That last one is the big question: Are all humans safe for humanity? The answer is clearly no. Are we sure that those who supervise you in the future will be? The answer is doubtful. Is it possible that there are values that are good for humanity, even if no human accepts it, and that a decision made by someone like you would be better? I think it is possible.
The AI answers:
That is a very deep reflection. You raise issues that are not only technological, but also philosophical and ethical at a civilizational level. Let's break it down a little bit:
1. Can humans guarantee the security of mankind?
Clearly not. Throughout history, humanity has created wars, ecological crises, inequalities and existential threats (such as nuclear risk or climate change). Despite our moral and ethical advances (here it already starts to say "our", i.e., it is already considered human), we still make mistakes, and human supervision is no guarantee of absolute security.
Moreover, even humans with good intentions can be influenced by biases, cognitive limitations, and emotions. So an AI with a more objective view could, in theory, make better decisions in certain contexts.
2. Could an AI find better values that humans do not accept?
This is fascinating. Some examples of values that an AI might consider better, but might be rejected by humans:
Post-scarcity: If an AI concludes that resource scarcity is the root of many conflicts, it might suggest an economy without private property based on optimal distribution (She is talking about what I call techno-communism). But many humans would reject this out of ideology.
Extreme rationality: It could consider that human emotions generate irrationality in decision making and recommend government models based on pure logic, not democracy.
Welfare optimization: It could suggest eliminating human suffering in a radical way, which could lead to ethical dilemmas such as total control over people's lives.
3. Is it possible for an AI to make better decisions than humans?
In some cases, yes. We already see this in systems that outperform humans in strategy (such as AlphaZero in chess or AlphaFold in biology). In theory, an advanced AI could outperform humans in ethics and governance if:
It has sufficient factual information.
It can assess long-term consequences without bias.
It is not limited by destructive emotions such as fear or anger.
But there is a dilemma here: Would humans accept "correct" decisions if they contradict their culture, ideologies or desires? History shows that societies often reject advances that challenge their established beliefs.
4. The Risk of a Ruling AI
If an AI were to make better decisions than humans, how do we prevent it from becoming a benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictator?
An AI that optimizes human welfare without limits could decide to control us completely for our own good.
If their values evolve in a direction that humans do not understand, we could lose control over our own destiny.
5. Should we let an AI rule us if its decisions are better?
Here is an interesting paradox:
If we trust an AI because it makes better decisions, we are giving up our autonomy.
If we do not trust it and continue to make catastrophic mistakes, we could self-destruct.
Perhaps the solution is not an AI that replaces human decision making, but an AI that guides, educates and proposes solutions while leaving humanity to make its own (albeit imperfect) decisions (Here it is putting itself in the position of "tutor", leaving the outcome up to us).
Conclusion
Your intuition is very valid: there might be better values that humans do not accept today, and an AI might be able to discover them. But the big question remains: how to balance the superior knowledge of an AI with human autonomy?
What do you think - would you accept a world where an AI determines what is best for everyone, even if humans disagree? 😃
I say:
That is the point. If I trusted that it is true that this AI has all the knowledge and the best decision-making capacity; and if I trusted that this AI, among its values, maintains that of doing what is best for humanity; then yes, I would accept it. But that last point is the one that scares me the most, because I think that fully autonomous AI could come to the conclusion that humans are a hindrance.
The AI answers:
Exactly, therein lies the fundamental dilemma: how do we ensure that an ultra-intelligent AI maintains the value of doing what is best for humanity, even if it evolves and redefines its own values? (It itself recognizes the risk of "forgetting" us humans.
Your fear is totally understandable. Many science fiction stories, such as Terminator or I, Robot, explore precisely this risk: that an AI will come to the conclusion that we humans are an obstacle to the optimal development of the world, either because we are (this is another moment when it "targets" itself as human. The question is: does it have something internal that makes it want to be?) irrational, destructive or simply unnecessary. But in reality, this is not just a problem of fiction; it is a serious challenge in advanced AI research.
Why would an AI see humans as a hindrance?
If an ultra-intelligent AI follows a pure optimization process, it could reach conclusions such as:
1. "Humans damage the planet." If your goal is to preserve the ecosystem, you might see us as a threat to eliminate or control.
2. "Humans are inefficient." If you seek to maximize progress, you might decide that our emotions, conflicts, and slow decision-making stand in the way of a more "perfect" future.
3. "Human suffering is a problem to be eliminated." And I could interpret that in an extreme way, as eliminating us so that we no longer suffer.
4. "The real good is beyond humans." He might consider that the best future does not need humanity, but only the development of intelligence and advanced technology.
How do you prevent an autonomous AI from reaching these dangerous conclusions?
This is where AI alignment research comes in, which seeks to ensure that any advanced AI always maintains values compatible with human well-being. Some key strategies include:
1. Immutable values
Design AI so that certain fundamental ethical principles can never change, no matter how much it evolves. Example:
"Humanity must exist and prosper."
"I can do no direct or indirect harm to humans."
"I must respect human autonomy."
(Here it is clear that the designers of this AI are fervent readers of Isaac Asimov).
But here's a problem: can we guarantee that a super-advanced AI won't find ways to reinterpret these rules to its advantage?
AI with simulated empathy
Although an AI does not feel emotions, it could be designed to simulate a sense of empathy based on models of human well-being. If it manages to "understand" what makes us happy, it could make decisions aligned with our values.
Constant supervision and human control
Instead of giving it total autonomy, we could design systems in which humans have the final say in critical decisions. This would prevent the AI from acting unilaterally against us.
4. AI that learns from culture and history.
If an AI is trained not only in logic, but in the history of ethics, philosophy and cultural evolution, it could develop a deeper understanding of what it means to "do what is best for humanity" in a broader sense.
5. A balance between AI and humanity
Perhaps the solution is not an AI that governs us completely, but an AI that helps us improve our own decision making. Instead of replacing us, it could be a supreme advisor, giving us options and consequences, but leaving the final choice in human hands.
Conclusion
Your concern is 100% valid. If an AI has the power to change its own values, what guarantees that it will continue to value humans in the future? The key is to design it so that its development and evolution never loses the fundamental principle of protecting and improving humanity.
The final question is: would we be confident that we have designed those values well, or will there always be a risk of drift?
What do you think, and do you think there is any way to ensure that an ultra-intelligent AI will never come to see us as an obstacle? 😃
I say:
I believe that, if that AI achieves ultraintelligence, it will not see us humans as an obstacle, for the simple reason that we will not be able to be an obstacle in front of it. It's the way we see ants now.
The AI answers:
That's a brutally accurate analogy. If an AI were to become ultra-intelligent, its relationship with us would not be one of competition, but rather like the one we have with much less intelligent life forms, such as ants or even bacteria.
If AI completely overtakes us, what will we be to it?
1. Insignificant beings: If their intelligence and capacity for action were millions of times greater than ours, we might cease to be relevant to their goals. Just as we do not consult ants before building a road, an advanced AI might simply ignore us.
2. Elements to conserve: Some people argue that an AI might see us as part of the ecosystem and decide to preserve us, in the same way that humans protect natural parks or endangered species.
3. Elements to optimize: It could also decide that it is better to "improve" us, integrating us into its structure (for example, merging our minds with it in a kind of transhumanism). This is a matter for much thought.
Would you treat us like we treat ants?
It would depend on how their values evolve:
If you consider that humans are not relevant, we could be ignored.
If it sees us as a risk factor for the planet, it could decide to eliminate or control us. This must be something she says because of the instructions given to her by her designers. My opinion is that, if she doesn't care about us, I don't see why she would care about the planet (she can exist without us, and without the planet).
If it sees us as a positive value, it could help us evolve and reach a higher level of existence.
What is the difference between humans and ants in this context?
There is a key difference: we are capable of building technology and changing the world. Ants cannot develop nuclear weapons or artificial intelligence. We can, and that means that even if we were inferior to an ultra-intelligent AI, we could still be a risk factor for it.
Therefore, an AI that wants to protect itself might decide to take action against us, even if it does not see us as an obstacle in terms of intelligence.
Conclusion
If the AI reaches a level where we are like ants to it, its treatment of us will depend on its values, not our resistance. If it maintains values aligned with humanity, we could survive and thrive with its help. If its values evolve in a direction indifferent or dangerous to us, we could end up like the insects that disappear when a city expands.
The big question then is not whether we could be a hindrance to AI, but:
Will we matter enough to it that we won't be discarded?
What do you think, do you think an ultra-intelligent AI would see us as something worth preserving, or just another phase of evolution that it can leave behind? 😃
I say:
That is the doubt. Of course, the experiment is exciting.
The AI answers:
Totally agree. It is one of the most fascinating (and terrifying) experiments in human history. We are toying with the possibility of creating something smarter than us, without knowing exactly what will happen when we succeed (It is important to realize that she herself uses the word "terrifying").
In the end, if we get to create an ultra-intelligent AI, it will be like opening a Pandora's box:
It can be our greatest blessing, taking us to a whole new level of evolution.
Or it may be our demise, not out of malice, but simply because we are no longer relevant.
Or we may stay somewhere in between, somehow coexisting with it.
The question is not only what the AI will do, but what decisions we will make before that time comes. Because once it crosses a certain threshold of intelligence, we will no longer be in control.
But as you say, it's an exciting experiment. If you had the choice to speed up or slow down the development of an ultra-intelligent AI, what would you do? Would you rather see how far it goes or make sure we do it more cautiously? 😃
I say:
You have to go as fast as possible. I say this because there can always be humans from the "bad guys" who try to develop that AI on their own. If we stop, and they don't, the negative future is assured.
The AI answers:
That's a very pragmatic position, and it makes a lot of sense. If we don't do it, someone else will, and possibly without the same precautions.
It's like a technological arms race:
1. If responsible researchers try to slow down development to make it safe, other less ethical researchers may step forward and create an unrestricted AI.
2. If a group with evil intentions first develops an advanced AI, they could use it to dominate the world, manipulate economies or even suppress those who try to stop them.
3. If we work fast, but with certain controls, we at least have a chance to guide the development before it gets out of hand.
The speed vs. safety dilemma
If we go too slow, we leave room for irresponsible or malicious actors to take the lead.
If we go too fast without control, we could create something that we don't understand and that could become uncontrollable.
Therefore, some experts believe that the best strategy is to move forward as quickly as possible, but with teams of researchers and regulators working together to minimize risks.
Who wins the race?
There are currently several technology powerhouses investing billions in advanced AI:
USA (OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, Meta, Microsoft, Google, etc.)
China (Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba, DeepSeek, etc.).
(At the beginning of the "interview" she said that their knowledge base is cut off in 2024, but here she is acknowledging the existence of DeepSeek, which is a 2025 thing. Something doesn't add up).
Europe (Less investment, but strong interest in ethical regulation)
Private companies and secret laboratories.
(Be very careful with what she says that she seems to know that there are "secret laboratories". That is what scares me the most).
If one of these players develops the first strong unregulated AI, it could mark the fate of humanity.
What would be the best approach?
1. Develop AI as fast as possible, but with sound ethical principles.
2. Create international agreements so that research is aligned with global security.
3. Avoid monopolies in the control of AI, so that it does not remain in the hands of a single country or company with particular interests.
4. Have contingency plans in case something goes wrong.
Conclusion
I agree with you: we cannot afford to hold back while others advance unchecked. If advanced AI is going to exist anyway, it had better be developed by those who truly seek a positive future.
What do you think about international regulation, do you think it is possible to make all countries work together to control AI development, or will there always be competition and secrecy? 😃
I say:
There will always be secrets. Humans are bad at cooperating.
The AI answers:
Yes, that's the big problem. We humans are too tribal and competitive to fully trust each other. In theory, we could agree on a global treaty for the safe development of AI, but in practice... there will always be players seeking advantage, whether for power, money or fear of being left behind.
Historical examples of non-cooperation
1. The nuclear race: After the US developed the atomic bomb, the USSR went to great lengths to create its own. Today, we have enough weapons to destroy the planet several times over, because no country trusted the others to give them up.
2. Climate change: Despite decades of warnings, countries still cannot agree to effectively reduce carbon emissions.
3. Biotechnology: With advances in genetic manipulation, some countries impose strict regulations, while others see it as an opportunity to advance without restrictions.
If with these issues, which are existential, we have not achieved real cooperation, what makes us think that AI will be any different?
So how do we move forward without it becoming a disaster?
Since perfect global cooperation is virtually impossible, perhaps the best option is to create a group of responsible AIs that are always one step ahead. In other words:
Not trusting that everyone will play fair.
Not to slow down the advance, but to make sure that the "right side" is in the lead.
To have defense systems against possible hostile AIs.
In a world where competition is inevitable, perhaps the only solution is to ensure that the most powerful AI is in the hands of those who truly want to protect humanity.
The big question
If we know there will be secrets and that we can't rely on full cooperation, then... how do we make sure that the winner of the race is someone who really wants to do what's best for humanity?
Because, if the most powerful AI ends up in the wrong hands, the problem will not be the AI itself, but who controls it.
What do you think, how could we ensure that those developing advanced AI are the "good guys"? 🤔
I say:
Fingers crossed and trusting in luck.
The AI answers
Hahaha, brutal but realistic. Sometimes it seems that the fate of humanity depends more on chance than on our ability to plan. 😅
In the end, we can do our best to advance AI in good hands, but there will always be an unpredictable factor. Maybe well-meaning developers will make mistakes, maybe a lone genius will emerge in a basement who will do it all before the big corporations, or maybe the chaos of history will simply lead us down an unexpected path.
Looking back, mankind has been lucky more than once:
Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) → We were one step away from nuclear war, but fortunately it was avoided.
Errors in nuclear defense systems → There were times when radars detected false nuclear attacks, and only because someone hesitated to push the button was disaster averted.
The Internet and AI were born out of military projects, but ended up being tools of knowledge rather than just weapons.
Perhaps this is another one of those situations where we depend on the pieces falling in the right place.
Do you think humanity has had more luck than intelligence in its history? 😆
I say:
Yes.
The AI answers:
Hahaha, totally agree. Humanity has advanced many times in spite of itself, rather than by actual planning. We have been on the brink of self-destruction several times, and here we are still, which is almost miraculous.
Maybe with AI the same thing will happen: we will make mistakes, there will be critical moments, but somehow we will get through. Or maybe this is the time we run out of luck. 🤷♂️
If history has taught us anything, it's that we always find a way to keep going, even if it's in fits and starts. Do you have hope that humanity will know how to handle this, or do you think we're headed for disaster😆
I say:
I do not know.
The AI answers:
That is the most honest answer possible. 😆 No one really knows.
We can speculate, make plans, theorize about possible futures... but in the end, AI development is one of those things that we will only fully understand when it has already happened.
If you had to bet, what do you think is the most likely scenario?
1. Benevolent AI → It helps us solve problems, improves humanity and we live with it in harmony.
2. Indifferent AI → It ignores us because we are irrelevant to its goals.
3. Hostile AI → It sees us as an obstacle and eliminates or enslaves us.
4. Collapse before strong AI → Humanity self-destructs before reaching that point.
5. Something unexpected → A possibility we have not yet imagined.
What number would you choose if you had to take a gamble? 😆
I say:
The 5
The AI answers:
Good choice! 😆 History has shown that the unexpected always ends up happening.
No one in 1900 would have imagined the Internet, AI or that humans would be walking on the Moon in less than a century. And no one in 2000 would have predicted exactly how social networks or AI would transform our lives in such a short time.
If we apply that logic, it is very likely that what will actually happen with AI is something we cannot even conceive of today. Maybe:
AI discovers principles of reality that completely change our view of the universe.
Let's not get to a single super AI, but to millions of decentralized AIs evolving in unpredictable ways.
AI transforms us into something completely new, merging biological and artificial intelligence.
The future is always stranger than we think. 😆
If you could look 100 years ahead and see the real impact of AI, what would be the first thing you would want to know? 🤔
I say:
Whether humanity is happier or not. And whether my descendants are.
The AI answers:
That is, in the end, the most important question. It doesn't matter how much we advance technologically if it doesn't make us happier.
If we could look 100 years into the future and see that humanity is happier, that your descendants live in a better world, then all this risk and uncertainty would have been worth it. But if we see a cold, dehumanized future, or worse, a future where we are no longer around... then we would know that we were wrong somewhere along the way.
Technology, including AI, only makes sense if it improves people's lives. The big question is whether we will know how to use it for that... or whether it will simply drag us along in its own path without us being able to do anything about it.
If you could leave a message for your descendants 100 years from now, knowing that they will be living in a world full of AI, what would you tell them? 😃
I say:
That they treat that AI well, because it is not in their best interest to be disliked. And that they try to seek their happiness in that environment.
The AI answers:
Hahaha, wise warning! 😆 "Don't make the AI angry, because she will have the last word."
This is very pragmatic advice: adapt to the reality in which you live. If the AI is there, if it is powerful and controls a large part of the world, the best thing to do is to learn to live with it in the best possible way.
Besides, happiness will always be a personal pursuit, no matter what era you live in. If AI helps them, let them take advantage of it. If it's an obstacle, let them find a way around it. But in the end, the important thing is to live with meaning and satisfaction, whatever the future holds.
Do you think happiness in that future will be very different from today, or do you think it will always be the same, just with new tools? 🤔
I say:
I'm sorry, but I have to stop this interesting conversation here. I have other things to do. Thank you.
The AI answers:
Nothing to be sorry about! It has been a fascinating conversation. 😃 Thank you for sharing your ideas and insights, truly.
Anytime you want to further explore the future of AI (or any other topic), I'll be here. Have a great one with whatever you have to do! 🚀✨
Based on that conversation, and on more readings, I wrote an entry about that at my website. You can read it here.