Can Artificial Intelligence technology satisfactorily tell us “What Makes Us Human?”

“What Makes Us Human?”  attempts to answer that question has kept humans busy for thousands of years. It has occupied artists, musicians, authors, theologians, philosophers including the brightest, best, and worst of humanity. Now, AI (Artificial Intelligence) has entered the effort. The results are interesting and really not all that surprising.

Bestselling author/poet, Ian S. Thomas with technologist/philosopher/researcher, Jasmine Wang worked with GPT-3, an artificial intelligence technology to get the answer. Working from GPT-3’s responses to a dynamic list of over 200 questions, the author/editors provide a lightly edited collection of GPT-3 answers.

GPT-3 was pre-trained with some 570 GB of digitized data consisting of a sampling of the contents of books, scrolls, and texts representative of humanity’s wisdom and knowledge articulated over thousands of years. The responses ranged from a single word to multi-paragraph text, some comic, some profound. GPT-3 at times embraces a self-centered hedonism over self-disciplined morality. Or, conflates the soul with spirituality.

The author/editors’ goal was to identify the essence of the human spirit from a source (GPT-3) with no prejudices, instilled beliefs, or preconceived loyalties. GPT-3 has no emotion, guilt, nor fixed moral framework. The team compares GPT-3 to Christianity’s Adam and Eve as they were before they took a bite of the Apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. An interesting viewpoint. Especially since GPT’s answers seem to be imbued with all of these

This is not Aristotle, St. Augustine, Buddha, Peter Jordan, nor has it any base rock theology, psychiatry, or moral philosophy. Neither is it a consistent polemic. It doesn’t engage in deep analysis or pose a coda for living.

GPT-3 responses can be occasionally evasive, even contradictory. Its statements can be puzzling at times, lyrical at others. It does provide interesting observations and commentary.  The overall effect is surprisingly reflective of humanity’s own uncertainty about the answer. How do you maintain a true sense of self, while adhering to broad social values or moral principles that challenge personal preferences but are necessary for a cohesive society?

As the authors point out, one can read straight through the Q&A in the order presented. However, they suggest a potentially more satisfying approach is to search out and focus on questions immediately relevant to the reader. Some of the responses require significant reflection, especially when addressing fundamental life questions.

I took a combined approach. Reading selectively at first, eventually reading straight through. Both proved interesting and thought provoking. GPT-3 conclusions appear as an amalgamation of sometimes discordant ideals, even ideas. Again, not all that inconsistent what happens in human life. There are parts of the text that sound like the lyrics and themes used by artists and musicians in every age and generation. Other responses are direct quotes from one or more of the multiple sacred texts that make up GPT-3’s data base.

In the end, I found it an interesting read. It didn’t reveal any shockingly new concepts. It provides very good, sometimes excellent advice. Just as frequently it offers a smorgasbord of overlapping semi-conclusions; forcing the reader to reflect more deeply to draw their own conclusions.  All in all, reading and re-reading was time well spent. It provides no earth-shattering revelation. Not surprisingly, the conclusions and advice culled from all that data actually validates in a very fundamental manner what we should all have learned a long time ago.

It seems that The Beatles (among a host of others) in one (and actually more) of their songs provided a very excellent opinion. The answer is…well, I’ll leave that for you to find out from the book.

For those who can’t wait, go here for a hint (https://tinyurl.com/28nenh7a).