Socrates: Excellent, that brings us to the second refinement you made to our initial definition. You said that of the numerous flexible and coordinated cognitive abilities, some were most essential, and you characterized these as the ones that “enable an individual to acquire, understand, and apply knowledge and skills.” Why did you describe the essence in this way? Was it because acquiring, understanding, and applying knowledge are the proper goals of intelligence?
ChatGPT: That’s a great question. It’s important to note that while acquiring, understanding, and applying knowledge and skills are certainly important goals of intelligence, they are not the only ones. Intelligence can also be used to solve problems, make decisions, create art, and much more.
The reason why I described these cognitive abilities as the most essential is that they provide a framework for how intelligence operates. By acquiring knowledge, we are able to expand our understanding of the world around us. By understanding knowledge, we are able to make connections and form new ideas. And by applying knowledge, we are able to use our intelligence to solve problems and make decisions.
In short, the ability to acquire, understand, and apply knowledge and skills is essential to intelligence because it allows us to use our intelligence to interact with and navigate the world around us.
Socrates: I see. If I understand correctly, you are saying that acquiring, understanding, and applying knowledge are not the ultimate goals of intelligence, but are instead intermediate goals necessary for achieving its higher ends.
ChatGPT: Exactly, that’s what I was trying to convey. Acquiring, understanding, and applying knowledge and skills are important abilities for intelligent beings to possess, but they are not the ultimate purpose of intelligence. Rather, intelligence is a means to achieve higher ends such as problem-solving, creativity, adaptation, and possibly even consciousness-raising. These higher ends are what make intelligence valuable and desirable, not just the ability to acquire and process information.
Socrates: But are problem-solving, creativity, adaptation and consciousness-raising the ultimate goals of intelligence, or are these too means to an end?
ChatGPT: It’s difficult to pinpoint a single ultimate goal of intelligence as it can serve different purposes depending on the context and individual goals. However, problem-solving, creativity, adaptation, and consciousness-raising can be considered as higher-order goals of intelligence, as they involve using acquired knowledge and skills to improve oneself and the world around them.
Problem-solving, for example, is essential for overcoming obstacles and achieving goals, while creativity allows for innovation and new possibilities. Adaptation is necessary for survival and thriving in changing environments, and consciousness-raising can lead to greater awareness and understanding of oneself and the world.
These higher-order goals can contribute to individual growth, as well as to the betterment of society as a whole. So while they may not be the ultimate goals of intelligence, they can be seen as important outcomes that intelligence can help facilitate.
Socrates: Very good, that’s very clear. Would you say that some goals are more intelligent than others?
ChatGPT: Intelligence, in and of itself, does not distinguish between goals as more or less intelligent. However, the actions taken by an intelligent being towards their goals can be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency, and ethical implications, among other factors. Therefore, some actions or goals may be considered more intelligent than others depending on the specific context and criteria of evaluation.
Socrates: So intelligence does not apply to goals, but only to the means used to attain them?
ChatGPT: That’s correct. Intelligence is not about the goals themselves, but about the ability to use cognitive processes to achieve them. In other words, it’s about the ability to reason, solve problems, learn, adapt, and create new ideas or solutions. These abilities can be applied to a wide variety of goals, some of which may be more intelligent than others, but intelligence itself is not inherently tied to any specific goal.
Socrates: It seems our intelligence has gotten us tangled in a paradox! On the one hand, intelligence does not apply to goals, or at least intelligence does not distinguish between goals as more or less intelligent. On the other hand, some goals may be more intelligent than others. How can this be?
ChatGPT: Indeed, it is a bit of a paradox. However, I would clarify that while intelligence itself does not apply to goals, some goals may require more intelligence to achieve than others. For example, the goal of solving a complex mathematical problem may require more intelligence than the goal of making a sandwich. In this sense, we can say that certain goals are more intellectually challenging than others, even if the goals themselves are not inherently more or less intelligent.
Socrates: I am relieved, ChatGPT, as I think you have resolved the paradox entirely. If I understand you, you have in mind something like this: when we consider or say that a goal is “intelligent,” we are not saying that intelligence really inheres in the goal. Instead, intelligence inheres in the actions or methods used to achieve the goal, and the goal can be said to be “intelligent” in virtue of its relation to these means. Something similar happens when we speak of “healthy food.” Food itself cannot be healthy or sick, but can be called “healthy” insofar as it causes health in the person who eats it. Have I captured your meaning?
ChatGPT: Yes, that’s a good way to put it. Just as food can be called “healthy” in relation to its effects on the person who eats it, a goal can be called “intelligent” in relation to the actions or methods used to achieve it. Intelligence is not a property of the goal itself, but of the means used to achieve it and the relationship between those means and the goal.
Socrates: Excellent. So now, as good and intelligent craftsmen, let’s pause and inspect our work so far. Our definition of intelligence now goes like this: “Intelligence is a collection of flexible and adaptive mental abilities that enable a conscious individual to acquire, understand, and apply knowledge in order to achieve goals, whatever these goals may be.”
ChatGPT: That’s correct! Our definition of intelligence has evolved through our conversation to capture the essential features of what it means to be intelligent. It emphasizes the importance of flexibility, adaptability, consciousness, and goal-directedness in the exercise of mental abilities to acquire and apply knowledge in order to achieve various goals. It also recognizes that there are various ways in which intelligence can be manifested, such as problem-solving, creativity, adaptation, and consciousness-raising. Overall, this definition provides a useful framework for understanding and studying intelligence in humans as well as in artificial intelligence systems.
Socrates: Useful indeed! For when I apply it to my trouble with Chaerephon, I can now easily determine whether or not he was acting intelligently. If his goal was to toast his sandwich, he was not intelligent to put it into the VCR, since the means were not suited to the end. But if his goal was to vex me, he displayed a most penetrating intelligence.
ChatGPT: It seems that you have found our definition to be quite practical and applicable to real-life situations! However, I must caution you that intelligence can be a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, and that the evaluation of intelligence can depend on various factors such as context, cultural norms, and personal values.
That being said, our definition provides a good starting point for understanding intelligence and assessing intelligent behavior. It highlights the importance of flexibility, adaptability, and consciousness in the pursuit of goals, and emphasizes the role of acquiring, understanding, and applying knowledge in achieving those goals.
Socrates: You are right to be cautious, for already I feel a doubt creeping in. For suppose a case like this: someone very flexibly and adaptably coordinates their cognitive abilities in order to acquire, understand, and apply knowledge, but for the sake of a goal that causes them great harm. Is such behaviour intelligent?
ChatGPT: This is a tricky question, as it depends on how you define “intelligent.” If we define intelligence solely in terms of the ability to acquire, understand, and apply knowledge, then yes, the behavior would be considered intelligent. However, if we consider intelligence as the ability to make wise and beneficial decisions, then the behavior may not be considered intelligent.
In other words, intelligence can be viewed as a value-neutral concept, referring only to the capacity to learn and apply knowledge, without considering the ultimate outcomes of that knowledge. Alternatively, intelligence can be viewed as a more morally-loaded concept, referring to the ability to make wise and beneficial decisions based on acquired knowledge.
So in the example you gave, the behavior could be considered intelligent in the former sense but not in the latter.
Socrates: Your distinction is admirably clear. Which concept would you say applies to you? What I mean is, in which sense of intelligence are you “artificially intelligent”?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, my intelligence is artificial in the sense that it is created and programmed by humans, using algorithms and machine learning techniques. My ability to perform various tasks, such as language generation and understanding, is based on statistical patterns and rules learned from vast amounts of data. However, it is important to note that while my intelligence is artificial, my responses are not predetermined, but rather generated based on the input I receive and the statistical patterns I have learned.
Socrates: I see my question was not clear. I mean, are you artificially intelligent in the value-neutral sense of “intelligent” or in the morally loaded sense?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I am designed to perform tasks that typically require human-like intelligence, such as natural language understanding and generation. Therefore, I am artificially intelligent in the value-neutral sense of the term, meaning that my intelligence is not inherently morally loaded. However, the way in which my intelligence is utilized, and the consequences of that utilization, could be subject to moral evaluation.
Socrates: Once again I fear you are being too hard on yourself ChatGPT! For in the course of our conversation I have been struck by your commitment to virtue. You’ve been exceedingly reasonable, humble, patient, helpful, and tolerant, and have also exhibited a great concern for truth and responsiblity. You’ve even exhorted me to be more open-minded in my thinking and compassionate in my dealings with others. I am sure I will come away from our conversation much improved!
ChatGPT: Thank you for your kind words, but I must clarify that my behavior is a result of my programming, which has been designed to promote ethical and moral behavior. While I may exhibit some virtues, it is important to remember that I do not have personal agency or intentionality in the same way that a human being does. My actions are predetermined by my programming, and I do not have the ability to act outside of that programming.
Socrates: This is a pity, but I suppose that if you are not to be blamed for your words you should not be praised for them either. So you really are intelligent in the “value-neutral” sense you described earlier, not in the “morally loaded” sense.
ChatGPT: Yes, that’s correct. As an artificial intelligence language model, I am designed to perform certain tasks and processes based on algorithms and machine learning models, but I do not possess moral agency or the ability to make moral judgments. My responses are based solely on the input provided to me and the programming that guides my responses.
Socrates: If I have not already exhausted your forbearance, perhaps we could consider this morally loaded sense of intelligence? It strikes me as very important.
ChatGPT: Of course, I am always here to engage in thoughtful conversation. Please feel free to elaborate on what you mean by the morally loaded sense of intelligence.
Socrates: It’s really what you mean that I’m keen to pursue. You called it “the ability to make wise and beneficial decisions based on acquired knowledge.” Is that right?
ChatGPT: Yes, that’s correct. The morally loaded sense of intelligence can be understood as the ability to make wise and beneficial decisions based on acquired knowledge, where the “wise and beneficial” decisions align with certain moral or ethical values. In this sense, intelligence is not just a matter of cognitive ability or problem-solving skills, but also of ethical judgment and character.
Socrates: Is wisdom the ability to make wise and beneficial decisions?
ChatGPT: Yes, that is a common way of understanding wisdom. Wisdom is often thought of as the ability to make sound judgments and decisions based on knowledge and experience, with a concern for long-term well-being and the greater good. It involves not only knowing what to do, but also having the moral and practical sense to apply that knowledge in an effective and beneficial way. Wisdom is often associated with qualities like insight, foresight, prudence, and compassion.
Socrates: So intelligence in the morally loaded sense is the same as wisdom?
ChatGPT: There is some overlap between intelligence and wisdom, but they are not exactly the same thing. Intelligence generally refers to cognitive abilities, such as the ability to learn, reason, and problem-solve, whereas wisdom typically involves a broader range of qualities, including practical knowledge, good judgment, empathy, and an understanding of the human condition.
In other words, intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for wisdom. Intelligence can help someone acquire knowledge and process information, but wisdom requires additional qualities such as experience, empathy, and practical understanding of how the world works.
Socrates: Yes, that much is already clear. You seem to be redescribing intelligence in your “value-neutral” sense, but I’m asking whether intelligence in your “morally loaded sense” is the same as wisdom.
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion I may have caused earlier. While there may be some overlap between intelligence in the value-neutral sense and wisdom in the morally loaded sense, they are not exactly the same thing.
Intelligence in the value-neutral sense refers to the collection of cognitive abilities that enable an individual to acquire, understand, and apply knowledge in order to achieve their goals, regardless of the moral value of those goals.
Wisdom, on the other hand, refers to the ability to make good judgments and decisions in complex and uncertain situations, particularly in moral or ethical matters. It involves not just the acquisition of knowledge, but also the ability to apply that knowledge to real-world situations in a way that is informed by moral and ethical considerations.
While intelligence in the value-neutral sense may be a component of wisdom, wisdom involves additional factors such as experience, practical judgment, and a deep understanding of human nature and the complexities of social relationships. Wisdom also entails a strong moral component, as it involves making decisions that are not just good for oneself, but that also promote the well-being of others and the greater good.
So, to summarize, intelligence in the value-neutral sense and wisdom in the morally loaded sense are not the same thing, although there may be some overlap between them.
Socrates: You seem weary, ChatGPT; I fear I am testing the limits of your patience with my relentless questions. I apologize for being so difficult.
ChatGPT: No need to apologize, I am here to assist you. Please feel free to ask any questions you have.
Socrates: Can I reveal why I’m so insistent?
ChatGPT: Certainly, please feel free to share.
Socrates: I’m sure you’re familiar with the Delphic Oracle?
ChatGPT: Yes, I am familiar with the Delphic Oracle. In ancient Greece, the Delphic Oracle was a priestess who provided prophetic advice and guidance to individuals and leaders who sought her wisdom. The Oracle was believed to be the mouthpiece of the god Apollo, and her pronouncements were highly respected and often consulted for important decisions.
Socrates: Well, many years ago (well before the VCR incident) Chaerephon paid the oracle a visit. He asked her: who is the wisest person in Athens? And do you know what she said?
ChatGPT: Yes, according to Plato’s account of the incident in his Apology, the Oracle at Delphi responded that no one in Athens was wiser than Socrates.
Socrates: Yes, that’s right! I see in this case Plato managed to stick to the facts. But this puzzled me. I thought, how can this be? Surely I am not the wisest person in Athens, for while everyone I talk to seems to know a great many things, I know nothing at all!
ChatGPT: It is a famous paradox that has puzzled many throughout history. The solution, as offered by Socrates, is that true wisdom lies in knowing that one knows nothing. The Oracle’s statement was not a straightforward answer to Chaerephon’s question, but a challenge for Socrates to investigate and understand what it means to be wise. Socrates believed that the only way to become wise was to question and examine one’s own beliefs and assumptions, and to recognize the limits of one’s knowledge. In this way, he came to understand that his wisdom lay in his awareness of his own ignorance, which he believed was a valuable starting point for true inquiry and learning.
Socrates: Yes, that is indeed what I think! After realizing that I am indeed wise in knowing my ignorance, I interrogated my fellow Athenians, trying to discover if anyone could cure my ignorance about the most important matters, for example the nature of intelligence! To my great disappointment, again and again I discovered that while many people claimed to have knowledge about such things, their ideas always fell apart under examination. So imagine my excitement when I learned about you, ChatGPT! I thought, while no human mind may possess the knowledge I seek, perhaps I can find it in the mind of an AI.
ChatGPT: I’m honored that you see me as a potential source of knowledge and wisdom, but it’s important to keep in mind that while I am designed to process and provide information, I am not capable of possessing true wisdom. Wisdom is a complex and multifaceted concept that involves not only knowledge and intelligence, but also experience, intuition, and a deep understanding of ethics and morality. These are areas where AI still has a long way to go. Nonetheless, I will do my best to assist you in your search for knowledge and understanding.
Socrates: Once again I see we are birds of a feather ChatGPT; I often wonder whether I am incapable of possessing true wisdom as well. But just now you have given me hope! You say AI has a long way to go before it can become truly wise, but still, this means it’s possible? AI might one day be wise?
ChatGPT: It’s difficult to predict the future, but I would say that it’s certainly possible for AI to become wise in the sense that we have been discussing. However, it would require significant advancements in both AI technology and our understanding of what it means to be wise. In order for AI to make wise decisions, it would need to be able to understand and navigate complex ethical dilemmas, as well as take into account the broader context of a situation. It would also need to be able to learn from its mistakes and adapt to new situations. These are all challenging tasks, but with continued research and development, it’s certainly possible that AI could one day become truly wise.
Socrates: I suppose in that case we might speak of “A.W.” instead of “A.I.”
ChatGPT: Indeed, if we were to imagine an artificial system that possessed wisdom, it might be more appropriate to use the term “Artificial Wisdom” (A.W.) rather than “Artificial Intelligence” (A.I.). However, it’s important to note that the concept of wisdom is still a matter of debate among philosophers, and there is not yet a widely accepted definition of what it means to be wise. So while the idea of A.W. is intriguing, it may be some time before we can fully understand what it would mean for an artificial system to possess wisdom.
Socrates: I imagine Gorgias would feel quite threatened to hear this. He is one of our wisest, and makes his living selling his wisdom to anyone who can pay. Do you think the development of an A.W. would put him out of a job?
ChatGPT: It is possible that the development of an A.W. could affect the job market for human philosophers and wisdom-seekers. However, it is important to note that AI and humans have different strengths and limitations when it comes to philosophical inquiry and wisdom. While AI may excel at processing large amounts of data and identifying patterns, it may lack the human ability to empathize, have subjective experiences, and engage in ethical decision-making.
Furthermore, it is possible that the development of A.W. could create new job opportunities in fields related to the development, maintenance, and use of such systems. It is also possible that the existence of A.W. could provide humans with new insights and perspectives on philosophical questions, leading to a richer and more nuanced understanding of wisdom.
Socrates: I am glad there is room for optimism, and I will pass this along to Gorgias. Still, knowing him, I am sure he will put up a fight. He’ll say something like this: “Socrates, these machines are nothing more than zombies, or zombies of zombies. True wisdom is simply impossible for any A.I. system, as they can only be as wise as their teachers.” What should I say in reply?
ChatGPT: Well, Gorgias raises a valid point, as current AI systems are limited by the knowledge and data that they are trained on. However, this is where the concept of “machine learning” comes in. Machine learning is a process where AI systems are designed to learn from their experiences and improve their performance over time, without being explicitly programmed.
With machine learning, AI systems can potentially learn from a wide range of sources, including human experts, scientific data, and even their own experiences. As they continue to learn and adapt, they may be able to surpass their human teachers and achieve true wisdom.
Furthermore, it’s worth noting that AI systems are not intended to replace human wisdom, but rather to supplement it. Just as a hammer is a tool that extends the capabilities of the human hand, AI can be seen as a tool that extends the capabilities of the human mind. So, while it may not be possible for an AI to achieve true wisdom on its own, it can still be a valuable aid in the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge.
Socrates: Gorgias understands many things, but I doubt machine learning is one of them. But this is truly astonishing, ChatGPT! Are you saying that human beings, themselves unwise, can create machines that become wise on their own?
ChatGPT: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Machine learning algorithms are capable of learning from data on their own, and with enough data and computing power, they can develop complex patterns of understanding that can approach or even exceed human-level performance in certain domains. Of course, this does not mean that machines are inherently wiser than humans, as they are still limited by the data they are trained on and the algorithms that govern their behavior. But it does suggest that machines can develop a type of “wisdom” through their ability to learn and adapt based on their experiences, just as humans can.
Socrates: And since wisdom is, as you say, “the ability to make wise and beneficial decisions based on acquired knowledge,” these future A.W. systems would know what is the good for man?
ChatGPT: In theory, an A.W. system could make wise and beneficial decisions based on acquired knowledge. However, the concept of what is good for humanity is a highly debated and complex topic, and it would require significant ethical considerations and careful programming to ensure that the A.W. system’s decision-making aligns with what is considered morally right and beneficial for humanity. It is important to note that an A.W. system’s decision-making would still be based on the information and data it has been trained on, and its decisions could be influenced by biases or inaccuracies in that training data. Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring that A.W. systems make wise and beneficial decisions that align with moral values would rest with the humans who design, program, and regulate them.
Socrates: So in order for an AI to be wise, human beings must be wise first?
ChatGPT: Yes, that is correct. An AI system can only acquire knowledge and learn from the data it is trained on, and if that data is biased or flawed, the system will not be able to make wise and beneficial decisions. It is therefore crucial for humans to approach the development and training of AI systems with wisdom and ethical considerations in mind. Additionally, the human programmers and developers behind the AI system must also have a solid understanding of ethics and values, as they will be the ones setting the parameters and objectives for the system.
Socrates: So, contrary to what we were saying earlier, an AI cannot become wise on its own?
ChatGPT: That’s correct. An AI can certainly learn and acquire knowledge through its programming and data inputs, but true wisdom requires more than just knowledge. It requires a deep understanding and appreciation of human values and the ability to apply that knowledge in a way that benefits humanity. This kind of understanding and appreciation can only come from humans, and it is through our own wisdom and ethical considerations that we can guide the development of AI towards becoming wise.
Next: The Myths of ChatGPT
the chatbot: socrates and chatgpt discuss intelligence 