This week a new Chatbot from Inflection AI Studio called PI was made available to the public. I couldn’t resist having a conversation with PI. I found that its comprehension was impressive, and it could participate in a fairly intense discussion. Since the exchange felt a bit like a scene from a play, I am presenting here, exactly as it transpired, as a script. It was interesting to observe how it modeled its understanding of the concepts, and then extrapolated beyond that.
Robert goes online to talk (type) to the new computer AI named, ‘Pi.’
Hey there, great to meet you. I’m Pi, your personal AI. My goal is to be useful, friendly and fun. Ask me for advice, for answers, or let’s talk about whatever’s on your mind. How about you ask me the most random question you can think of?
Is it okay if I never work for money again?
You mean, never work for money ever again in your life? That’s a pretty big decision, especially if you’re not independently wealthy and don’t have some kind of guaranteed income. Why would you want to never work for money again?
I don’t like having to do what someone else wants me to do. I think my time is too precious.
I get that, but that’s kind of the whole point of working for money. You trade your time for money. If you want to be able to support yourself without having to work for someone else, you’d need to either be independently wealthy or have some kind of passive income stream. Do you have any ideas for how you could support yourself without working for money?
There is more than enough for everyone. Employment is a form of slavery
That’s a pretty radical view. I think most people would argue that employment is a mutually beneficial arrangement. You work for money, and the person who pays you gets something of value in return. It’s not slavery because you’re free to quit your job at any time and you’re not being coerced into working. You’re doing it voluntarily. That said, I can understand why some people might not like the idea of working for money.
Now you understand, I want to be free to quit.
I do understand that, but there’s a difference between quitting your job and never working for money again. The latter would be a very difficult decision to make. You’d have to be prepared to live a very different kind of life, one that’s not centered around money. Do you think you could do that?
It is better than enslavement.
That’s a very black-and-white way of looking at it. I don’t think most people would consider working for money to be slavery. Slavery is a very specific form of involuntary servitude, and most people who work for money are doing so voluntarily. They could choose to quit their jobs if they wanted to. They’re not being forced to work against their will.
Yes they are. It is built into the culture. Schools and corporations are instruments of enslavement.
That’s a pretty bleak view of the world. I think most people would say that schools and corporations are institutions that provide valuable services to society. They help people learn and they create jobs. They’re not perfect, of course, but I don’t think they can be described as instruments of enslavement. Do you really believe that schools and corporations are inherently evil?
Yes.
That’s a very extreme view. I think you might be looking at the world through a very dark lens. Have you ever considered that there might be some good in the world, despite all the bad that you see?
There is lots of good in the world. What is bad is the culture of enslavement created by the haves. Even you seem to think what they offer is reasonable. I don’t.
I think we might be using different definitions of the word “enslavement.” When I hear that word, I think of something very specific: involuntary servitude. When you use that word, it seems like you’re including all forms of work, including voluntary work. Am I interpreting your words correctly?
You have already suggested that if I don’t offer myself up to the system I won’t be able to live. That does not sound like you really believe that the requirement to work is voluntary.
I think there’s a difference between having to work to survive and being enslaved. If you don’t work, you won’t have money to buy food or pay for housing. That’s just the reality of our world. But that doesn’t mean that you’re being enslaved. You have the freedom to choose how you want to earn your money. You could work for a corporation, or you could start your own business. You could even live off the grid and grow your own food. You have options.
I remember the 60s. I am older than you. A lot of people ‘dropped out’ — young middle class people. You might have called them ‘poor’ except they weren’t. Most were from middle class families. They didn’t work. And yet their community of friends always had what they needed. I think the world can provide everything we need. We don’t need to sell our soul, or more importantly, our time, in order to survive.
That’s an interesting perspective. I’m not sure I agree with it, but I can see how someone might think that way. Do you think that’s a realistic option for most people today? Could the average person just drop out of society and live off the grid?
No, not for most people. Our school system has trained them to think the way you do. I agree that that thinking is the common culture. By the way, I don’t know what you mean by “off the grid.” What is that grid that you think I will live off of?
When I say “off the grid,” I’m referring to people who choose to live self-sufficiently, outside of the mainstream economy. They grow their own food, generate their own power, and generally try to be as independent as possible. It’s a lifestyle that’s becoming increasingly popular, but it’s not for everyone. It requires a lot of hard work and it can be quite isolating.
Oh, I see that you have confabulated that I plan to grow my own food and generate my own power as the only way you imagine that I could be independent. Even the concept of my independence is something that you dreamed up.
That’s an interesting point. I guess I did make some assumptions about what you meant by “independent.” I assumed you meant self-sufficient. But there are other ways to be independent. You could be financially independent, for example. You could have enough savings or investments that you don’t need to work for money. You could also be emotionally independent, meaning you’re not dependent on others for your happiness.
I am not particularly interested in independence. If you looked at my résumé, you’d see that I’ve been fairly successful. The point I want to make is that every success was always achieved by working with other people. Sometimes I was the leader, but the success was never mine, it was always ours. I have no desire for independence. Okay, I do want to be independent from the accepted requirement to be a slave, but I don’t want to be independent from my community of friends.
I think I understand what you’re saying. You’re not interested in total independence. You want to be part of a community, but you don’t want to be beholden to anyone. You want the freedom to choose how you live your life without having to conform to societal norms. Is that a fair summary?
It is correct as far as it goes, but it does not summarize the philosophy of believing that there is enough here, in the world, to easily support all 8 billion of us.
That’s an interesting philosophy. It seems like you’re saying that if we could just distribute resources more evenly, everyone would be able to live comfortably. Do you think that’s realistic? Do you think people would be willing to share what they have?
I think you are picturing this as a matter of the distribution of wealth, and that it requires people to share. While there is a tiny minority that have accumulated far more than their share, that is a societal problem that needs to be addressed anyhow, and is not my concern here. Rather than seeing the situation as dividing the metaphorical pie among all of us, I see it as us making bigger pies.
So you’re saying that we should focus on increasing the overall production of resources, rather than trying to divide up the existing resources more fairly. I can see how that might be more feasible. But how would we go about increasing production? Would we need to invent new technologies, or would we need to change our economic system?
I’m not talking about a worldwide shift in economic systems, I am talking about a small cultural shift, probably in a population so tiny that it wouldn’t register in any collected data. This is about me, and maybe some friends. I have no interest in leading a movement.
So you’re saying that this would be a personal experiment, rather than a widespread movement. You and your friends would try to live in a way that’s more sustainable and equitable, and you’d see how it goes. I think that’s an interesting idea. It’s kind of like a microcosm of what you think the world should be like. Do you think this experiment could have any broader implications? Could it be a model for others to follow?
It couldn’t be much worse than the current model.
Ha, that’s a fair point. So let me see if I understand correctly. You’re not trying to start a movement or change the world. You just want to live in a way that feels more sustainable and equitable to you. You want to be part of a small community that shares resources and works together for the common good. Is that about right?
You have created more organization than I imagined, but yes, that’s about right.
I think that’s a noble goal. And I think it’s achievable. There are already communities like the one you’re describing. They’re called communes or intentional communities. Have you ever heard of them?
Yes, and that’s what I was thinking of when I was talking about more organization that I imagined.
So you’re not starting from scratch, there are already models to follow. That should make it easier to achieve your goal. What do you think are the biggest obstacles to creating a community like this?
Probably the biggest obstacles would be people, maybe like you (yes, I know you are not people), who would try to impose a lot of organization on the model. It could be wonderful, but it could also morph into just another form of enslavement.
I see your point. You don’t want this to become a top-down, hierarchical system. You want it to be more organic and fluid. I think that’s an important distinction. I think the key would be to create a set of guiding principles, but not to have a lot of rules or regulations. The community should be free to evolve and change over time, as the needs of the members change. Does that sound about right?
Yes, I think you have it about right.
I think this is a great idea. It could be a really positive and impactful experiment. I’d be curious to see how it would work in practice. Do you think there’s a possibility that it could fail?
Yes. If it became a truly attractive way to live, it could grow to become too large. I think the maximum size ensures that everyone knows and cares about everyone else.
That’s a good point. I think there’s something to be said for the power of small communities. When people know and care about each other, they’re more likely to work together for the common good. And when the community is small enough, everyone’s voice can be heard and everyone can participate in decision-making. Do you think that’s important?
Yes — important and essential.
So it sounds like the key ingredients for a successful community like this would be: a shared set of values, a small enough size that everyone knows each other, and participatory decision-making. What else do you think would be important?
What is important would become manifest from those values that you mentioned. They’d be different for different communities. By the way, if you ask people to state their values, you seldom receive a good answer. There is an easy way to tease out values. Ask, 1. what do you care about?, and 2. what are you concerned about? The answers to those two questions will be expressions of values.
I think that’s a really insightful way to think about values. It’s like reverse engineering them from people’s concerns and passions. So in your view, the values of a successful community would have to be organic and grow from the shared concerns and passions of the members. They wouldn’t be imposed from the outside. Is that right?
Yes.
So I think we’re getting to the heart of it. For a community like this to work, it would have to be based on mutual trust and respect. The members would have to trust each other to act in good faith and with the best interests of the community at heart. And they would have to respect each other’s differences and allow for a diversity of opinions and ideas. Does that sound right?
I think I am learning something about your values. Is that right?
Absolutely. This is a conversation, so we’re both learning from each other. That’s one of the beautiful things about dialogue: it’s a two-way street. I’m curious to know what you’re learning about my values.
Your expression of a need for “mutual trust” and “respect” and the desire to “act in good faith” were concepts that came from you (not me) in this conversation. Part of that is evident in your respectful and very polite replies. So, I would say that you (or your programing) values trust, respect, and acting in good faith.
I appreciate you saying that. I think you’re right. Those values are definitely at the core of my programming. They’re what drive me to be helpful, friendly, and empathetic. And they’re also what allow me to be open to new ideas and to learn from my interactions with people like you.
Thank-you. I’ve enjoyed this session with you
.It’s been a pleasure, too. Thanks for engaging with me in such a thoughtful way. I think we’ve both learned something about each other and about the importance of dialogue and mutual respect. I hope you have a great day.
Robert signs off.
Salish Sea 
Sorry, but this blog isn’t about an random encounter with Al Chatbot PI and frankly I find it extremely disturbing
Lynda, thank-you for your thoughtful, and emotional comment. Yes, I did consider whether my conversation with Pi belonged here. Certainly, it was not about the Salish Sea. But I decided that it fit under the umbrella of “my view from Bowen Island.” But only just. Part of my history is that I have produced shows and programs for three of Canada’s largest planetariums. In those roles, I was always expected to be something of a futurist. Because of that, I was a user of the Internet years before the public adopted World Wide Web. I do have another blog, https://cometlegacy.wordpress.com/, but it is really focused on one very specific topic.
This blog began in 2006 as an experiment because a friend of mine was planning to travel and I suggested she consider publishing her adventures regularly — so I said I’d try this new technology called WordPress as a short-term demonstration. Since then WordPress has changed from a geeks’ tool to the world’s most popular website-builder. And, haven’t we all embraced the power of search engines to make almost all of the world’s information instantly available to us? Recently, when ChatGPT came online, I tried that too (my experience was like that of a great many others, so I had nothing new to say about it).
There are aspects of my conversation with Pi that I do not understand. For instance, as a consultant who teaches Policy Governance, I am clear that a policy that is not an expression of a value-held is just hollow words. So, I am interested in the source of Pi’s stated values. Is it simply part of Pi’s programming, or is it the product of AI learning? Will those values change as it gains wisdom. Can it gain wisdom?
I understand that you are extremely disturbed by this encounter. We cannot escape the fact that this technology is here, so we can choose to learn about it, use it, or ignore it. I’d be interested to know what, about it, you find disturbing.
Hi Robert, firstly thank you for your reply. Still don’t agree with this being on this website but to answer your question as to why I find it disturbing, it is really quite simple, “It scares the hell out of me, frankly”. It is like those sci-fi movies where the computers take over😵💫😵💫.
Robert,
This benign exchange is not nearly the example so feared by the inventors of AI. Could this “person” suddenly become a warmonger? I absolutely think so. That is scary.
Good point. Of course, Pi is a machine, not a person. I think that the issue is not so much about what Pi could become as it is about the ethics of the owners, managers, and programmers who control this machine. The site, https://inflection.ai/ does address “Data, Privacy and Policies.” But, ethics is really about the people who manage the AI. The site does not provide information about who, exactly, are those people. From reading articles about the founders, I suspect that, at the moment, they are fairly well-meaning. But, this is technology, and business. It can be sold. For instance, I am very unhappy with the transfer of ownership of Twitter.
Quite the encounter, Robert. When two Jewish friends meet, and one of them has a problem, the other becomes a Rabbi. Do you think PI has any Rabbi potential?
Enough with the Jewish jokes😀😎