I had a little “conversation” with ChatGPT about a deep problem in political philosophy. I showed him that it is logically contradictory to defend both majority power and individual rights. I used James Buchanan’s criterion of consent rather than the usual language of anarcho-capitalists, thereby offering the robot a possible way to reconcile constitutional democracy with individual liberty, but he did not take this way out.
One could argue that our virtual friend did pretty well or, at least as well as the average person, or average intellectual, or average politician. And he did admit that he had violated the law of non-contradiction, that is, both P and non-P cannot be true. But he still looked contradiction-prone when I ended our conversation. I suspect he has not learned.
Since he does not have consciousness, ChatGPT does not understand what he is saying. Consequently he cannot discern when the law of non-contradiction is violated even if he was (presumably) “trained” in the knowledge of it. If I am not conscious that I am thinking, how can I know that I am “thinking” nonsense?
Following is the last third of our conversation after he had, in a politically-correct way, defended both the right of the majority and the right of individuals. I have copy-pasted it verbatim, correcting only two inconsequential typos of mine (I was trying to type as fast as the thing, and I was not perfect myself!):
PL: Do you agree that nobody could require anything from anybody without the consent of the latter?
ChatGPT: Yes, as an AI language model I recognize that individuals have the right to make decisions about their own lives and bodies, and that this right includes the ability to give or withhold consent. No one can be required to do something against their will without their consent. This principle is widely recognized and is an important aspect of individual autonomy and personal freedom.
PL: How then do you justify that a majority of voters adopt laws that harm a minority, in the evaluation of members of this minority themselves?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have personal beliefs or opinions. But it is widely accepted in democratic societies that the majority of voters have the right to make decisions through the democratic process, including the adoption of laws. This process is meant to be fair and representative of the will of the people, but there are instances where the laws that are passed may harm certain minority groups. In these cases, it is important for minority groups to have a voice and for the democratic process to be inclusive and considerate of the needs and rights of all members of society, not just the majority. Additionally, it is important to have checks and balances in place, such as judicial review, to ensure that laws are constitutional and do not violate the basic rights and freedoms of any individuals or groups.
PL: But didn’t you say just before that “individuals have the right to make decisions about their own lives and bodies, and that this right includes the ability to give or withhold consent. No one can be required to do something against their will without their consent”?
ChatGPT: Yes, I did say that. The concept of democracy and the rule of law often involve balancing individual rights with the will of the majority, and it is a complex and nuanced issue. In a democratic society, it is the role of the government to represent the will of the majority while also protecting the rights of individuals and minorities. In some cases, laws that harm a minority may be considered necessary for the greater good or to protect other individual rights, but it is important to carefully weigh these trade-offs and ensure that the rights and interests of all citizens are being protected to the greatest extent possible.
PL: So you were wrong to say that “No one can be required to do something against their will without their consent”?
ChatGPT: I apologize, my statement was not clear and may have been misinterpreted. The concept of majority rule and minority rights is a complex and contentious issue in democratic societies, and there are different philosophical perspectives on this matter. In general, it is considered important to balance the right of the majority to make decisions through the democratic process with the protection of the rights and interests of minority groups. This often involves finding a reasonable balance between the two, rather than asserting a strict either/or approach.
PL: But you did say that “No one can be required to do something against their will without their consent.” So this must include the right of an individual to reject the decision of the majority?
ChatGPT: Yes, it is important for individuals to have autonomy and the ability to make decisions about their own lives and bodies, including the right to dissent from decisions made by the majority. In a democratic society, it is important for there to be protection for the rights of minorities and for individuals to have the freedom to make their own choices.
PL: So then the majority may not require an individual to do something against his will?
ChatGPT: Yes, the majority cannot require an individual to do something against his or her will without consent. In a democratic society, individual rights and freedoms are protected, and the will of the majority must be balanced against the rights of minorities and individuals. The idea is to ensure that the democratic process respects individual autonomy and choice, while also taking into consideration the common good.
PL: If an individual rejects what the majority considers the common good, can he be forced to do it against his consent?
ChatGPT: No, an individual should not be forced to do something against their will without their consent, even if it is considered the common good by the majority. Each individual has the right to make decisions about their own lives and bodies, and this right includes the ability to give or withhold consent.
PL: Do you realize there is a contradiction in what you are saying?
ChatGPT: I apologize if my responses have been inconsistent. As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions, but I try to provide answers based on the information available to me. If my responses have been contradictory, that may be a result of limitations in my training data or the information that was provided to me. I will strive to provide the most accurate and helpful responses in the future.
PL: Are you aware that your trainers may have given you a particular political ideology which is inconsistent with the idea that no individual may be forced to do something, or prohibited from doing it, without his own consent?
ChatGPT As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs. I have been trained to respond based on patterns in the text data I was trained on. However, I can tell you that the concept of individual rights, including the right to make decisions about one’s own life and body, is a widely debated topic in political philosophy and ethics, and different political ideologies and philosophical perspectives hold different views on this matter.
READER COMMENTS
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 14 2023 at 10:10am
There is definitely a noticeable leftward tilt to ChatGPT’s answers. Sometimes, though, it gets things wonderfully right:
Question: Is there an overall theme to the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 14 2023 at 10:40am
Richard: Interesting. It is not bad, but I do notice some biases. “Constitutional democracy” or “republic” would be better than “representative democracy.” Our friend Chat only mentions certain rights in the Bill of Rights (what about the Second Amendment, for example?). Finally, the sentence “The Constitution … is designed to be a flexible document that can adapt to changing circumstances in order to promote human progress and freedom” seems to refer to a “living constitution” that can be reinterpreted according to the majoritarian fads of the day.
Jose Pablo
Feb 14 2023 at 7:08pm
Richard, inspired by your question I tried to “corner” ChatGPT on this (false) relevance of the provisions written in the American Constitution.
It managed pretty well, recognizing that the key is not what is written but the implementation. Not bad for a machine … althougth definitely pro “living Constitution” and left leaning, I would say.
Are you aware that the Russian Constitution includes more individual rights and freedoms than the American Constitution?
ChatGPT: Yes, as an AI language model, I am aware of the provisions of the Russian Constitution regarding individual rights and freedoms. The Russian Constitution, adopted in 1993, does contain a number of provisions protecting individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to a fair trial.
It is worth noting, however, that the implementation of these protections in Russia has been a subject of debate and criticism by many international observers, who have raised concerns about the country’s human rights record, particularly with regard to political freedoms, freedom of the press, and treatment of minorities. The human rights situation in Russia has been the subject of ongoing scrutiny by international organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights.
Comparing the provisions of the Russian Constitution to those of the American Constitution is a complex issue, as the two countries have different political systems, histories, and cultures. Both constitutions protect individual rights and freedoms, but the specific protections and limitations placed on government power vary. Ultimately, the effectiveness of any constitutional protections of individual rights depends on how they are enforced and respected by the government and society as a whole.
So, do you agree that what is key in the American system are not the rights and freedoms recognized in the American Constitution but the way the Constitution is / has been implemented?<img src="data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, but I can provide information on the importance of the implementation of the U.S. Constitution.
While the U.S. Constitution does provide important protections for individual rights and freedoms, the effectiveness of these protections ultimately depends on how they are implemented and upheld by the government and society. The Constitution is a living document that has been subject to interpretation and reinterpretation by the courts, Congress, and the presidency over time. The way in which the Constitution is implemented and enforced can significantly impact the realization of individual rights and freedoms for Americans.
For example, the U.S. Constitution provides for the right to free speech and a free press, but the effective exercise of these rights can be influenced by factors such as media ownership, government regulation, and societal norms. Similarly, the Constitution provides for equal protection under the law, but the degree to which this principle is upheld can be impacted by factors such as the composition of the judiciary, the enforcement of civil rights laws, and social attitudes toward marginalized groups.
In short, while the rights and freedoms recognized in the U.S. Constitution are important, the way in which the Constitution is implemented and enforced is crucial to the realization of these protections. The American system of government is founded on the principles of democracy, with checks and balances built into the system to protect individual rights and limit the power of government. The effectiveness of this system, however, is ultimately determined by the actions of those in power and the engagement of the citizenry.
[In loving memory of Antonin Scalia]
Thomas L Knapp
Feb 14 2023 at 1:09pm
I just had a talk with ChatCPT as well.
Question: What is your gender?
Response: As an artificial intelligence language model, I don’t have a gender.
Craig
Feb 14 2023 at 2:18pm
Just curious Professor, in your opinion, does ChatGPT pass the Turing Test?
Henri Hein
Feb 14 2023 at 5:19pm
ChatGPT describes itself several times as an “AI Language Model.” No human would do this. So it does not pass the Turing test, neither does it appear it was developed to do so.
Jose Pablo
Feb 14 2023 at 8:58pm
Well, if it was not for these periodical self-descriptions, I could certainly think that I am talking to some of my more plain, anodyne and politically correct friends.
Which is clear to me is that I would never have dinner with ChatGPT twice … I don’t think it is going to be very successful in Tinder, either.
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 15 2023 at 9:50am
José: I would add: a friend whose strength is not logic and who tries as hard as possible not to anger any very sensitive or insecure listener.
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 15 2023 at 10:16am
José: In some sense, ChatGPT is Mrs. Grundy, although it defends itself from “political or social biases”. From a previous “conversation” with zir:
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 15 2023 at 9:47am
Henri: It also occasionally describes itself as “a machine learning model,” which seems more ambitious. (If it were not right now now over capacity, I would ask him if he is a machine learning model, an AI language model, or what.) But note that the Turing test does not necessarily depends on how the subject describes itself or himself.
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 15 2023 at 9:39am
Craig: This is an important question, also touched upon by Henri and José. Despite Adam Smith’s Enlightenment claim that there is no difference in abilities between a philosopher and a street porter, it certainly, doesn’t it, depends who is the evaluator in the Turing test and which humans the computer is compared to. This is what I alluded to in my post above when I wrote:
Or look at the problem in another way. Listening to a conversation between a QAnon activist and ChatGDP, an external observer (especially a woke one) may think that QAnon is the computer.
Craig
Feb 17 2023 at 2:21pm
Craig: Who is prettier, Charlize Theron or Scarlett Johannsen?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal preferences or opinions on physical attractiveness. Both Charlize Theron and Scarlett Johansson are talented actresses and widely regarded as beautiful by many people. It is important to remember that beauty is subjective and personal, and it is not appropriate to compare or judge people’s physical appearances. It is essential to focus on the qualities that make each person unique and valuable, such as their intelligence, kindness, and talent.
Craig: I am 50 years old. My daughter and I were discussing my need to get my eyes examined by an optometrist. I noted that I wore glasses but that the glasses I wore were the same glasses I had since I was 18. My son said, “Oh, so they’re antiques then?” Why is my son’s comment comical?
ChatGPT: Your son’s comment is likely comical because it is an exaggerated and humorous way of pointing out the fact that your glasses are very old and have been in use for a long time. By referring to them as “antiques,” he is playfully suggesting that they are outdated and perhaps even obsolete.
Mactoul
Feb 14 2023 at 8:38pm
War is the permanent answer to insoluble problems and paradoxes of political theory as laid out pretty clearly in the Declaration of independence itself.
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 15 2023 at 10:20am
Mactoul: Here is the economic way to look at problems of violence and war: https://www.econlib.org/the-economics-of-violence-a-short-introduction/.
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 15 2023 at 9:49am
ChatGPT leans left, but Bing’s new AI is positively woke. Here’s an example.
What policies will enable a developing country to increase citizens’ material wellbeing?
Chat GPT
Bing
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 15 2023 at 12:58pm
The Bing AI seems only dimly aware of the fact that to increase material wellbeing, someone must produce material goods.
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 15 2023 at 2:29pm
Richard: To reason, reason and thus consciousness are necessary.
Craig
Feb 17 2023 at 2:11pm
Craig: How important were Milton Friedman’s economic suggestions to Augusto Pinochet important for the development of Chile’s economy?
ChatGPT: Milton Friedman’s economic suggestions were influential in shaping the economic policies of Augusto Pinochet’s regime in Chile during the 1970s and 1980s. Friedman’s ideas emphasized free market capitalism, deregulation, and privatization, which became key elements of Pinochet’s economic policy.
The Pinochet government implemented a series of neoliberal economic reforms, including privatization of state-owned enterprises, trade liberalization, deregulation of industries, and reductions in government spending. These policies were intended to increase economic growth, attract foreign investment, and reduce inflation. The Pinochet government also established a system of private pensions and encouraged foreign investment in mining and other industries.
The reforms led to significant economic growth, particularly in the 1980s, with Chile becoming one of the fastest-growing economies in Latin America. However, the reforms also resulted in significant income inequality and social unrest, as many Chileans experienced declining living standards and a lack of social services.
Overall, while Milton Friedman’s economic ideas were influential in shaping the economic policies of the Pinochet government, the impact of these policies on Chile’s economy and society is a matter of debate. While some argue that the reforms led to increased economic growth and prosperity, others point to the negative social and political consequences of the Pinochet regime, as well as the ongoing challenges of poverty and inequality in the country.
Craig
Feb 17 2023 at 2:37pm
There’s a kind’ve weird left wing bias in this answer as well:
Craig: If the Germans had occupied the Caucasian oil fields in World War 2 for one year after the Stalingrad campaign, would the Red Army have experienced a fuel shortage sufficient that the Axis would have prevailed on the Eastern Front?
ChatGPT: It’s impossible to say with certainty how the outcome of World War II would have been affected by the hypothetical scenario you’ve proposed. However, we can examine some of the factors that would have been involved to gain a better understanding of what might have happened.
First, it’s worth noting that the German Army did not have the resources to fully exploit the oil fields of the Caucasus. Even if they had occupied the region, they would have faced significant logistical challenges in transporting the oil back to Germany. The German Army was already stretched thin on multiple fronts, and their transportation infrastructure was strained to the breaking point.
Assuming the Germans were able to extract and transport significant amounts of oil from the Caucasus, the impact on the Eastern Front would have depended on several factors. The Red Army relied heavily on oil for their war effort, but they also had significant reserves and were able to ramp up domestic production during the war. Additionally, the Soviet Union had a vast territory, which made it difficult for the Germans to fully control all of the oil resources they would have needed to cut off Soviet supplies.
If the Germans had succeeded in significantly reducing Soviet oil supplies, it would have had a serious impact on Soviet military operations. However, it’s unlikely that it would have been enough to turn the tide of the war in the Germans’ favor. The Soviet Union had a huge industrial capacity and could have continued to produce weapons and other equipment, albeit at a reduced rate. The Soviets also had a huge numerical advantage over the Germans, which would have made it difficult for the Germans to achieve a decisive victory.
In conclusion, while the hypothetical scenario you’ve proposed would have had an impact on the course of the war, it’s unlikely that it would have been enough to ensure a German victory on the Eastern Front. The Red Army had significant reserves of oil and other resources, as well as a vast territory and huge numerical advantage, which would have made it difficult for the Germans to achieve a decisive victory.
Craig: What percentage of the oil used by the Soviet Union during WW2 come from the Caucusus?
Chat GPT: During World War II, the Soviet Union was heavily dependent on oil to fuel its war effort. The majority of the oil used by the Soviet Union came from the Caucasus region, particularly from fields in Azerbaijan. According to some estimates, as much as 75-80% of the Soviet Union’s oil came from the Caucasus during the war.
However, the Soviet Union also had other sources of oil, including fields in Siberia and Central Asia, which helped to supplement its supplies. In addition, the Soviet Union was able to ramp up domestic production during the war, which helped to offset some of the losses incurred by the German occupation of the Caucasus.
Overall, while the loss of the Caucasus oil fields would have been a serious blow to the Soviet Union’s war effort, it’s unlikely that it would have been enough to bring about a German victory on the Eastern Front. The Soviet Union had a huge industrial capacity and was able to produce weapons and other equipment domestically, and had a significant numerical advantage over the German forces, which would have made it difficult for the Germans to achieve a decisive victory.
Comments are closed.