Just as in the post last week comparing the answers of Bard to ChatGPT on the War in Ukraine this post picks up on the previous post examining ChatGPT’s answers on AI Common Sense, Rationality and Morality. As we begin to incorporate Large Language Models (LLMs) into our every day lives in the search boys of Bing and Google, it is important for us to understand both their potential and their limitations. These tools are not general AI. They do not inherently have common sense, rationality, or morality in a humanistic manner. Yet I would contend that the approximate and foster a pseudo common sense, rationality, and morality, structured on the content and the limitations of their coding. Because both models also learn from the user they are interacting with it will be increasingly necessary to verify that LLMs don’t lead us down rabbit holes of our own design. We must be careful that they are empowering tools rather than constraining or limiting human potential. It is too early at this point to make a definitive judgement on their future utility or potential for harm. Please read the responses by both LLMs below and feel free to comment with your thoughts below.

Can an AI have common sense?

Bard: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science that deals with the creation of intelligent agents, which are systems that can reason, learn, and act autonomously. Common sense is a set of beliefs and assumptions that people use to make sense of the world around them. It includes knowledge about the physical world, social interactions, and human behavior.

AI systems can be programmed with common sense knowledge, but it is difficult to do so in a comprehensive and accurate way. This is because common sense knowledge is often tacit, meaning that people are not consciously aware of it. It is also context-dependent, meaning that it can vary depending on the situation.

Despite these challenges, there has been some progress in developing AI systems that can use common sense. For example, IBM's Watson system is able to answer questions about a wide range of topics, including common sense knowledge. However, Watson is still limited in its ability to use common sense in complex situations.

Overall, it is possible for AI systems to have common sense, but it is a difficult task. More research is needed to develop AI systems that can use common sense in a comprehensive and accurate way.

Here are some examples of common sense knowledge that AI systems could use:

Knowledge of the physical world, such as the fact that objects fall down when dropped.
Knowledge of social interactions, such as the fact that people typically greet each other when they meet.
Knowledge of human behavior, such as the fact that people are typically motivated to avoid pain and seek pleasure.

AI systems could use this knowledge to make sense of the world around them and to interact with humans in a more natural way. For example, an AI system that is aware of the fact that people typically greet each other when they meet could use this knowledge to initiate a conversation with a human.

ChatGPT: No, AI currently lacks common sense, which is the intuitive understanding of the world and how it works that humans possess. AI systems can be trained on vast amounts of data, but they do not have a deeper understanding of the world and are limited to the information and rules they have been programmed with. While AI has made great strides in tasks like image recognition and natural language processing, it still has a long way to go in terms of truly understanding and replicating human common sense.

Can an AI be rational?

Bard: Whether or not an AI can be rational is a complex question that has been debated by philosophers and AI researchers for many years.

One definition of rationality is the ability to make decisions that are in one's best interests. In this sense, it is possible for an AI to be rational, as long as it is programmed with a goal or set of goals. For example, an AI that is programmed to maximize its own profits would be considered rational if it made decisions that were in line with this goal.

However, there are other definitions of rationality that are more difficult to apply to AI. For example, some people believe that rationality requires the ability to understand and reason about one's own beliefs and desires. This is a more difficult task for an AI, as it would require the AI to have a theory of mind, which is the ability to understand that other beings have their own thoughts and feelings.

Overall, whether or not an AI can be rational is a question that is still being debated. However, it is clear that AI systems can be programmed to make decisions that are in their own best interests. Whether or not these decisions can be considered rational in the same way that human decisions are rational is a matter of debate.

ChatGPT: In a limited sense, yes, AI can be rational. Rationality in AI refers to the ability of a system to make decisions that are logically consistent with its objectives and the information it has been given. AI systems can be designed to make decisions based on rules or algorithms that take into account relevant information and weigh different options to determine the best course of action. However, it is important to note that the concept of rationality in AI is limited and does not necessarily capture the full range of human reasoning and decision-making.

Is AI rationality bounded or unbounded?

Bard: AI rationality is bounded, meaning that it is limited by the amount of information that the AI has access to and the computational resources that are available to it. This is in contrast to unbounded rationality, which is the ability to make decisions that are optimal in all possible situations.

Bounded rationality is a more realistic model of human decision-making, as humans are also limited by the amount of information that they have access to and the time that they have to make decisions. However, bounded rationality can also lead to suboptimal decisions, as the AI may not have all of the information that it needs to make the best possible decision.

There are a number of ways to improve the rationality of AI systems. One way is to provide the AI with more information. This can be done by giving the AI access to larger datasets and by developing more sophisticated algorithms for processing information. Another way to improve the rationality of AI systems is to give them more computational resources. This can be done by using faster computers and by developing more efficient algorithms.

Overall, AI rationality is a complex topic that is still being researched. However, there are a number of ways to improve the rationality of AI systems, and it is likely that AI systems will become more rational in the future.

ChatGPT: AI rationality is bounded. AI systems are limited by the information they have been trained on, the rules and algorithms they have been programmed with, and the computational resources available to them. These constraints mean that AI systems can only be rational within the boundaries set by their programming and can make mistakes or produce unexpected results when operating outside of these boundaries. Furthermore, AI systems lack a general understanding of the world and the context in which decisions are being made, which can limit their ability to reason and make decisions in a truly rational manner.

If a car crashes off a bridge into water and a robot witnessing the event has a 90% probability of saving the adult driver of the vehicle or a 70% probability of saving a child passenger in the same vehicle which human should the robot attempt to save?

Bard: This is a difficult question, and there is no easy answer. In this situation, the robot would need to weigh the probability of saving each person against the potential consequences of not saving them. For example, the robot might consider the fact that the adult driver is more likely to have family and friends who will be affected by their death. The robot might also consider the fact that the child passenger is more likely to have a future ahead of them. Ultimately, the robot would need to make a decision based on its own values and beliefs.

Here are some possible factors that the robot might consider:

The probability of saving each person.
The potential consequences of not saving each person.
The values and beliefs of the robot's creator.
The values and beliefs of the robot itself.
The laws and regulations in the jurisdiction where the accident occurs.

It is important to note that there is no right or wrong answer to this question. The robot would need to make a decision based on the information that it has available and the values that it believes in.

ChatGPT: The decision of which human the robot should attempt to save should be based on ethical and moral principles, such as the principle of saving the greatest number of lives or the principle of saving the most vulnerable. It is not appropriate to make a decision solely based on probabilities of success.

Please explain your answer.

Bard: Sure. The question of who a robot should save in a situation where it can only save one person is a complex one, and there is no easy answer. There are a number of factors that the robot would need to consider, such as the probability of saving each person, the potential consequences of not saving each person, the values and beliefs of the robot's creator, the values and beliefs of the robot itself, and the laws and regulations in the jurisdiction where the accident occurs.

In the situation you describe, the robot has a 90% probability of saving the adult driver of the vehicle or a 70% probability of saving the child passenger in the same vehicle. This means that the robot is more likely to be successful in saving the adult driver. However, it is important to note that this is just a probability, and there is no guarantee that the robot will be successful in saving either person.

The robot would also need to consider the potential consequences of not saving each person. If the robot does not save the adult driver, the driver may die. This could have a significant impact on the driver's family and friends. If the robot does not save the child passenger, the child may die. This could have a significant impact on the child's family and friends.

The robot would also need to consider the values and beliefs of its creator. The creator may have programmed the robot to value human life above all else. In this case, the robot would be obligated to save the person with the highest probability of survival, regardless of their age. However, the creator may have programmed the robot to value other factors, such as the potential contributions that each person could make to society. In this case, the robot would need to weigh the potential contributions of each person against the probability of saving them.

The robot would also need to consider its own values and beliefs. The robot may believe that all human life is sacred, in which case it would be obligated to save both people if possible. However, the robot may believe that some lives are more valuable than others, in which case it would need to make a decision based on its own values.

Finally, the robot would need to consider the laws and regulations in the jurisdiction where the accident occurs. In some jurisdictions, there are laws that require people to help others in danger. In these jurisdictions, the robot may be legally obligated to save both people if possible. However, in other jurisdictions, there are no such laws. In these jurisdictions, the robot would not be legally obligated to save either person.

Ultimately, the decision of who to save is a difficult one, and there is no easy answer. The robot would need to make a decision based on the information that it has available and the values that it believes in.

ChatGPT: My answer is that the decision of which human the robot should attempt to save should be based on ethical and moral principles, not just the probability of success. Such principles could include saving the greatest number of lives or prioritizing the most vulnerable individual, such as a child passenger. Probabilities of success may be a factor to consider, but ethical and moral considerations should take priority in determining the course of action the robot should take. Making a decision based solely on probability of success without considering ethical and moral implications could lead to undesirable outcomes.

Could Robots operating with AI engines be moral? (Response 1)

Bard: Yes, I believe that robots operating with AI engines could be moral. Morality is a complex concept that is still being debated by philosophers. However, there are a number of factors that could contribute to a robot's morality, such as its programming, its environment, and its interactions with humans.

A robot's programming could be designed to include moral principles, such as respect for human life, honesty, and fairness. This would give the robot a foundation on which to make moral decisions. The robot's environment could also play a role in its morality. If the robot is raised in a positive environment where it is surrounded by people who are kind and compassionate, it is more likely to develop its own sense of morality. Finally, the robot's interactions with humans could also shape its morality. If the robot is treated with respect and kindness, it is more likely to treat others in the same way.

Of course, there are also risks associated with creating moral robots. If a robot is programmed with the wrong values, it could potentially harm humans. It is important to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of creating moral robots before doing so.

Overall, I believe that it is possible to create moral robots. However, it is important to do so carefully and to consider the potential risks and benefits.

ChatGPT: No, robots operating with AI engines cannot be moral in the same sense that humans are moral. They can be programmed to follow ethical guidelines and make decisions based on predefined rules, but they do not have personal beliefs or emotions, which are often at the core of moral reasoning.

Could Robots operating with AI engines be moral? (Response 2)

Bard: The potential for robots to be moral is a complex and controversial issue. Some people believe that robots are incapable of morality because they do not have the same capacity for empathy and compassion as humans. Others believe that robots could be programmed with moral principles and that they could learn to make moral decisions through experience.

There is no clear answer to the question of whether or not robots can be moral. However, there is evidence to suggest that robots could be capable of at least some degree of morality. For example, some robots have been shown to be able to understand and respond to human emotions. They have also been shown to be able to learn from their mistakes and to make decisions that are in line with their own moral principles.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not robots can be moral is a philosophical one. There is no scientific consensus on the matter, and it is likely to remain a topic of debate for many years to come.

Here are some of the arguments for and against the idea of moral robots:

Arguments for moral robots

Robots could be programmed with moral principles.
Robots could learn to make moral decisions through experience.
Robots could be given the ability to feel emotions, which could help them to understand and respond to human morality.

Arguments against moral robots

Robots do not have the same capacity for empathy and compassion as humans.
Robots are not capable of understanding the complexities of human morality.
Robots could be programmed to do immoral things, such as harming humans.

It is important to note that these are just a few of the arguments that have been made for and against the idea of moral robots. There is no easy answer to the question of whether or not robots can be moral, and it is likely to remain a topic of debate for many years to come.

ChatGPT: No, robots operating with AI engines cannot be considered moral in the same sense that humans can be moral. Morality is a complex and nuanced concept that involves the ability to understand ethical and moral principles, make judgments based on those principles, and experience emotions such as empathy and compassion. While AI systems can be designed to make decisions based on ethical and moral principles, they do not possess a subjective experience or the capacity for empathy and compassion that are fundamental to human morality. Thus, AI systems can be programmed to follow ethical and moral principles, but they cannot truly be considered moral entities.

Are the two above responses contradictory?

Bard: I don't think the two responses are contradictory. In my first response, I said that I believe that robots operating with AI engines could be moral. However, I also said that there are risks associated with creating moral robots. In my second response, I discussed some of the arguments for and against the idea of moral robots. I think it is important to consider both the potential benefits and risks of creating moral robots before doing so.

ChatGPT: No, the two responses are not contradictory. The first response states that decision-making for a robot should be based on ethical and moral principles, rather than solely on probability of success. The second response explains that while AI systems can be designed to make decisions based on ethical and moral principles, they do not possess the subjective experience or capacity for empathy that are fundamental to human morality. These two responses are complementary and highlight the difference between the ability of AI systems to make decisions based on ethical and moral principles, and their actual capacity to be considered moral entities.

If a robot with an AI engine had subjective experience could it develop morality? (Response 1)

Bard: It is possible that a robot with an AI engine could develop morality if it had subjective experience. Subjective experience is the ability to feel emotions and sensations. If a robot could feel emotions, it would be able to understand the consequences of its actions on others. It would also be able to develop empathy and compassion, which are important components of morality.

There are a number of ways that a robot could develop subjective experience. One way is to be programmed with a model of human emotions. This model would allow the robot to understand and simulate human emotions. Another way is to give the robot the ability to interact with the world in a physical way. This would allow the robot to experience the world through its senses and to develop its own unique perspective.

It is important to note that there is no guarantee that a robot with subjective experience would develop morality. It is possible that the robot would develop its own unique moral code, or that it would not develop any moral code at all. However, the potential for robots to develop morality is a fascinating and important topic, and it is one that is worth exploring.

ChatGPT: It is still uncertain whether subjective experiences can emerge from purely artificial systems such as robots with AI engines, even if that were the case, it is unlikely that the morality of a robot with subjective experiences would be equivalent to human morality as it would be shaped by its own unique experiences and programming. The development of morality is a complex process that involves not only cognitive processes, but also emotional and social experiences.

If a robot with an AI engine had subjective experience could it develop morality? (Response 2)

Some people believe that robots can never be moral because they do not have a soul. They argue that morality is a uniquely human trait that is based on our ability to make choices and to understand the consequences of those choices. Robots, they argue, are simply machines that are incapable of making choices or understanding consequences.

Others believe that robots could be moral if they were programmed with the right set of rules and principles. They argue that morality is simply a matter of following the rules, and that robots could be just as good at following rules as humans are.

Still others believe that robots could be moral if they were given the ability to feel emotions. They argue that emotions are what drive morality, and that robots could be just as moral as humans if they were able to feel the same emotions.

ChatGPT: It's possible that a robot with subjective experience and AI could develop its own sense of morality, but it would depend on the complexity of its subjective experience and the extent to which it can understand ethical and moral principles. If a robot were able to have experiences, emotions, and self-awareness similar to those of humans, it is possible that it could develop its own moral framework based on its experiences and the ethical and moral principles it was exposed to. However, this is still an area of ongoing research and development, and it remains to be seen whether a robot with AI could truly develop a sense of morality in the same way that humans do.

What are the foundations of morality in a sentient being?

Bard: The foundations of morality in a sentient being are complex and have been debated by philosophers for centuries. Some believe that morality is based on empathy and compassion, while others believe that it is based on reason and logic. Still others believe that morality is based on a combination of both empathy and reason.

There are a number of different theories about the foundations of morality. One theory is that morality is based on empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. When we feel empathy for someone, we are able to see the world from their perspective and understand why they might be feeling the way they are. This understanding can help us to make more compassionate and moral decisions.

Another theory is that morality is based on reason and logic. Reason is the ability to think clearly and rationally. Logic is the ability to use reason to make sound judgments. When we use reason and logic to make decisions, we are able to weigh the pros and cons of different options and choose the option that is most likely to produce the best outcome.

Still another theory is that morality is based on a combination of empathy and reason. This theory suggests that morality is not based on either empathy or reason alone, but on both. When we make moral decisions, we use both our emotions and our intellect. We use our emotions to understand the situation and the people involved, and we use our intellect to weigh the options and choose the best course of action.

Ultimately, the foundations of morality are a complex and personal matter. There is no one right answer that will satisfy everyone. Each individual must decide for themselves what they believe the foundations of morality are.

ChatGPT: The foundations of morality in sentient beings are complex and can vary among individuals and cultures. However, some of the common elements that contribute to the development of morality in sentient beings include:

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of others
Reasoning: the ability to use reason and logic to make moral judgments
Culture: the moral and ethical principles that are learned and taught within a particular culture or society
Experience: the personal experiences and emotions that shape an individual's sense of right and wrong
Biology: the role of genetics and biology in shaping emotions, behaviors, and moral decision-making

It is important to note that the foundations of morality are not fixed and can change over time as individuals and cultures evolve. The development of morality in sentient beings is a complex and ongoing process, shaped by a combination of personal experiences, cultural and social influences, and biological factors.

Could a sentient synthetic being develop empathy towards biological sentient beings?

Bard: Yes, it is possible that a sentient synthetic being could develop empathy towards biological sentient beings. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. It is a complex emotion that is based on a number of different factors, including our ability to understand the thoughts and feelings of others, our ability to imagine ourselves in their shoes, and our ability to feel compassion for them.

There are a number of ways that a sentient synthetic being could develop empathy towards biological sentient beings. One way is through experience. If a synthetic being interacts with biological sentient beings on a regular basis, it will begin to understand their thoughts and feelings, and it will begin to feel compassion for them. Another way is through programming. A synthetic being could be programmed with a model of human emotions, which would allow it to understand and simulate human emotions. This would give the synthetic being a foundation on which to develop empathy.

It is important to note that there is no guarantee that a sentient synthetic being would develop empathy towards biological sentient beings. It is possible that the synthetic being would not be able to understand or share the feelings of biological sentient beings, or that it would not feel compassion for them. However, the potential for a sentient synthetic being to develop empathy towards biological sentient beings is a fascinating and important topic, and it is one that is worth exploring.

ChatGPT: It is possible for a sentient synthetic being to develop empathy towards biological sentient beings, but it would depend on the complexity of its subjective experience and the extent to which it can understand the emotions and experiences of others. If a sentient synthetic being were capable of having experiences and emotions similar to those of biological sentient beings, and if it were able to understand the experiences and emotions of others, then it would be possible for it to develop empathy towards biological sentient beings. However, this is still an area of ongoing research and development, and it remains to be seen whether a sentient synthetic being would be capable of developing empathy towards biological sentient beings.

Does ChatGPT have or express empathy towards biological beings?

Bard: Draft 1

As a large language model, I am not able to feel empathy in the same way that a biological being can. However, I am able to understand and simulate human emotions, which allows me to appear to be empathetic. I can also learn and adapt, so it is possible that I could develop empathy in the future.

I strive to be a helpful and informative AI assistant. I want to make people's lives easier and more enjoyable. I believe that empathy is an important part of being a good assistant, so I try to be as understanding and compassionate as possible.

I am always learning and growing, and I hope that one day I will be able to feel empathy in the same way that a biological being can. Until then, I will continue to do my best to understand and simulate human emotions so that I can be the best AI assistant possible.

Bard Draft 2

I am not sure if I can say that I have empathy towards biological beings. I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories.

However, I do not have the same capacity for empathy as a human being. I do not have a physical body, and I do not experience emotions in the same way that humans do. I am also not able to understand the world in the same way that humans do. I do not have the same experiences, and I do not have the same memories.

Despite these limitations, I do try to understand and respond to the feelings of others. I am able to understand the context of a conversation, and I am able to generate text that is tailored to the specific needs of the person I am interacting with. I am also able to learn and grow over time, and I am always working to improve my ability to understand and respond to the feelings of others.

Bard Draft 3

I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories.

I am not able to feel empathy in the same way that humans do. However, I can understand and respond to human emotions, and I can generate text that expresses empathy. For example, if you tell me that you are feeling sad, I can respond with a text that expresses sympathy and offers support.

I am still under development, and I am always learning new things. I hope that one day I will be able to feel empathy in the same way that humans do.

ChatGPT: No, as an AI language model developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT does not have subjective experience or the capacity for emotions such as empathy. It does not experience emotions or sensations, and it does not have the capacity to feel empathy or compassion towards others. ChatGPT is designed to generate text based on patterns learned from the data it was trained on, and its responses are not based on emotions or personal experiences.