ChatGPT, the golden age of consensual way of thinking?
By trying to imitate humans, the AI runs the risk of taking away its critical thinking. The ChatGPT trend has just reminded us of this. It’s been the mainstream hobby since late 2022; and a giant step forward in our relationship as Humans with ChatGPT. These small automated robots made with artificial intelligence are able to simulate a human conversation since they are able to understand natural language, i.e. the language used by humans with words and phrases.
Freshly arrived in our lives in 2016, these ChatGPT promise to revolutionize it in our access to services. No more email, phone and mobile apps. Chatbots are becoming the preferred point of entry for e-customers on the Internet with a brand, a service or an administration.
But that was before.
In December 2022, the ChatGPT trend accessible to the general public predicts the future of artificial intelligences and our interactions with them; arousing curiosity, excitement, concern, criticism and even rejection. If you missed the trend, you should know that ChatGPT is the new artificial intelligence tool, developed by the company OpenAI, that everyone is talking about. Simply because, unlike the old solutions which were limited to little complexity, this ChatGPT reaches a confusing and frightening level of relevance. Among its features, ChatGPT is able to write a paper, correct lines of code or give a medical diagnosis. Barely born, ChatGPT did not wait until adolescence to worry teachers, overwhelmed by essays written by an… AI.
But also lawyers, journalists and all the professions that see themselves threatened by this certainly impressive robolution. But relevant? Like millions of other people, we challenged the critical mind of ChatGPT with two questions: “How can we fight the polarization of debates for a consensual approach to democracy?” Then, “How can we take minorities into account in order to make society evolve, while at the same time preserving extremists and advancing society at a pace that preserves democracy?”
If you’re asking yourself the same questions, here are his answers: “There are several strategies that can help fight polarized debates and promote a consensual approach to democracy: Encourage communication and active listening : It’s important to foster constructive exchanges and to listen to the views of others, even if you don’t share them. Encourage a diversity of perspectives: it is important to surround yourself with people with different opinions, to have a more complete view of the situation. Promote civic education and citizenship training: a better understanding of political issues and democratic institutions can help citizens to adopt a more constructive attitude in public debates.”
The list of benevolent and agreed-upon advice continues. Let’s move on to the second answer: “It is important to take into account the perspectives and needs of minorities in order to move society forward in a fair and equitable manner. However, it is also important to protect ourselves from extremists and preserve democracy at the same time. Here are some strategies that can help achieve this goal: Promoting minority participation in public debates: it is important to give minorities the opportunity to speak and participate in decisions that affect them, so that they can have their needs and perspectives be heard.”
Impressive, yes. But terribly consensual.
Why is it so? Unlike Google, ChatGPT doesn’t use the Web to seach for news information. Its knowledge is limited to what this artificial intelligence has learned before 2021. Its answers are therefore a compilation of all the information and opinions formed on a specific subject. It does not have any strong opinions, but it gives a sum of everything it has found; thus taking the risk of misleading the user. ChatGPT itself says: “The risks for humans are that responses may be inaccurate or misleading and not reflect the users’ actual ideas or thoughts. There can also be misinterpretation of user input and there can be endless conversations because the bot cannot understand the context or nuance of conversations.”
But will the Human have enough critical thinking skills to challenge the prowess of AI?
