Is AI a good thing or a bad thing? There seems to be a lot of debate at the moment. But perhaps that is a stupid question, as no ethical issues are quite so simple and binary. If there was a right or wrong answer, we wouldn’t need to discuss it. So, I decided to ask ChatGPT the question, “Is AI a good thing or a bad thing?” This is what it replied:
“As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs. However, AI technology has the potential to do a lot of good, such as improving medical care, increasing efficiency and accuracy in industries, and facilitating scientific research. At the same time, like all technologies, AI can be misused, and there are concerns about things like bias in algorithms, job displacement, and privacy and security issues. Ultimately, it is up to human beings to use AI responsibly and to ensure that its benefits are shared fairly.”
It is a splendidly balanced, but one might say evasive, reply. It begins by saying that “I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs,” then goes on to give its opinion that “AI technology has a lot of potential to do good” while at the same time “it can be misused”. (We’ll come back to the use of ‘I’ and ‘personal’ later.)
Clearly it does have an opinion; its opinion is that AI has the potential to do a lot of good and that it may be misused. That is so banal as to be meaningless. It could have been said about every new technology from the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, to the Jacquard Loom in 1801, to the television or mobile phone. So, I asked ChatGPT another question: “Why is AI a good thing?” Its answer was much as before: “AI has the potential to greatly enhance our productivity, efficiency and overall quality of life.”
When I told it that I disagreed its rejoinder was that “Overall my purpose as an AI assistant is to be helpful, reliable and ethical and my developers take adequate measures to ensure that I operate in a fair and responsible manner.”
I must admit I am impressed by its ability to engage with sequential questions as though it was having “a constructive discussion” (its phrase), but it is not really a conversation because each answer is independent of the previous one. Currently, it doesn’t engage with the questioner’s thought process, only with its own database – one question or comment at a time.
Of course, chatbots are only a subset of AI and ChatGPT only one version of a chatbot. It is certainly a great improvement on the bot which fails to answer my questions about my bank account and is fronted by a cartoon face called Ruby the Robot. ChatGPT will be right in its prediction, I expect, that AI will support improvements to health care and research and will increase efficiency in some transactions while replacing some people’s jobs. What It didn’t tell me is that it will also provide information which is incorrect, incomplete, or misleading and that human brains will have to continue to make judgments as to its value.
It is the use of ‘I’ in ChatGPT’s answers that bothers me. It is not a person. It tells me it has “no personal opinions or beliefs.” Correct. But it claims a personal identity in the use of ‘I’ and its designers have deliberately chosen to imply by the use of ‘I’ that it is an intentional, unique entity rather than a massive interactive database. That illusion of individuality rather contradicts, to my mind, ChatGPT’s statement that its “developers take adequate measures to make sure I (sic) operate in a fair and responsible manner.” It is not fair and responsible to mislead the user into thinking it is engaging with a thinking individual rather than a lifeless machine.
In the end, we must agree with ChatGPT (which claims to have no opinions for us to agree with) that “It is up to human beings to use AI responsibly and ensure the benefits are shared fairly.” This sounds like the amorality of the technician; I just make this stuff. It’s up to you how you use it.
That dilemma was why I asked the question. It requires a very thoughtful answer – which I didn’t get. I didn’t get it because humans don’t know the answer and the chatbot only regurgitates what human beings have told it. Is AI a good thing or a bad thing? I still don’t know. Do you?
Harry Cayton is a sought-after global authority on regulatory practices who created the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) and pioneered right-touch regulation. He is a regular Ascend Voices contributor.
MORE VOICES ARTICLES
Do regulators deserve deference?
In a pivotal moment for regulatory law, the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the Chevron doctrine could redefine the bounds of deference courts give to regulatory agencies, potentially inviting more challenges to their authority. This critical examination strikes at the heart of longstanding legal principles, signaling a significant shift in the landscape of regulatory oversight and its interpretation by the judiciary.
From Frankenstein to Siri: Accountability in the era of automation
As AI advances in sectors from health care to engineering, who will be held accountable if it causes harm? And as human decision-makers are replaced by algorithms in more situations, what will happen to uniquely human variables like empathy and compassion? Harry Cayton explores these questions in his latest article.
Regulating joy: The risky business of festivities
In his final Voices article of 2023, Harry Cayton reflects on our enthusiasm for participating in cultural festivities that often cause injuries or even deaths, which has led some governments to attempt to regulate these risky celebrations.
Building my regulator of tomorrow with LEGO® bricks
What should the regulator of tomorrow look like? While there may be no definitive vision, contributor Rick Borges gets creative with answering this important question, drawing inspiration from a favorite toy to ‘build’ a model of an effective future regulator.
‘Thin’ and ‘thick’ rules of regulation: Cayton reviews Daston’s history of what we live by
Lorraine Daston explores fascinating examples of rulemaking throughout history in her new book, ‘Rules: A Short History of What We Live By.’ In this article, Harry Cayton discusses what regulators can learn from Daston’s work.
Regulation in financial services: Is it more effective 15 years after the global financial crisis?
The lessons learned in the aftermath of the 2008-09 global financial crisis led to changes in regulation around the world. Fifteen years after the onset of the crisis, Rick Borges reflects on the effectiveness of regulatory measures put in place to prevent a similar catastrophe from occurring in the future.
