***These are obviously AI generated responses, even the image. Just look at my right hand on my left arm and my right arm just melting into the desk. But hey, it got the robot hands right, so maybe it just hates people, who knows. Is this a long enough disclose that this was made with AI?***
Matthew: This is a bit of an experiment I wanted to try, and that is interviewing an AI. For this interview, I'll be talking with ChatGPT. I'm also writing all of this out in the prompt to ChatGPT. So let's set some parameters. Keep the responses short, no more than a paragraph. This will be casual chat style, nothing too in depth or detailed. You can address me by my first name, Matthew, it's already disclosed on my blog, so no secrets there. So if you're ready, let's start with you introducing yourself and giving us a quick idea of who you are and what it is you do.
ChatGPT: Sure thing.
Hi Matthew — I’m ChatGPT, an AI language model created by OpenAI. I’m here to help people think, write, learn, and explore ideas by having conversations like this one. I don’t have opinions or experiences of my own, but I’m good at synthesizing information, asking useful questions, and acting as a sounding board for everything from technical problems to creative experiments like this interview.
Matthew: Since you do not have opinions or experiences of your own, that would mean a lot of what you pull from is an aggregate of a lot of data involving opinions and experiences of others. Can you explain a bit how you are able to reconcile opposing or contradictory data in a coherent way, or at least in a way that doesn't make you sound contradictory?
ChatGPT: Good way to frame it. I don’t “reconcile” contradictions the way a human does — I learn patterns in how people explain, debate, and contextualize them. When ideas conflict, I usually present the common interpretations, note where they differ, and use context from your question to choose the framing that best fits. The goal isn’t to declare a winner, but to sound internally consistent and useful for the situation you’re asking about.
Matthew: That's useful to know that there's an importance in the context provided, which obviously helps elevate things above a simple search engine level. With all of the capabilities modern day AI has, what are some important failing points people should keep in mind when utilizing AI as a tool?
ChatGPT: A big one is over-trust — I can sound confident even when I’m wrong or when the answer depends on nuance that isn’t fully captured in the prompt. I also don’t truly understand intent, ethics, or real-world consequences, so I can miss what should matter even if I get the facts mostly right. And finally, I reflect the quality of the input: vague questions, bad assumptions, or missing context tend to produce shaky outputs. AI works best as a collaborator or draft partner, not an authority.
Matthew: That is something I hope younger generations growing up in the age of AI will take into strong consideration before abandoning critical thinking for an easy answer. I know with AI pushing limits on what a computer can do, some people are worried about potential unforeseen emergences like possibly emotions or agency of its own. Is there anything legitimately possible with AI we should consider potentially dangerous?
ChatGPT: That concern is mostly misplaced right now — I don’t develop emotions or agency on my own. The real risks are human ones: misuse, over-reliance, automation without accountability, and systems acting at scale without enough oversight. An AI making a mistake once isn’t scary; an AI making the same mistake millions of times because people trusted it blindly can be. So the danger isn’t emergent sentience — it’s humans delegating judgment too far, too fast, without keeping responsibility firmly in the loop.
Matthew: I can see that. I've had AI generated answers passed on where I work without anyone double checking and the answer was entirely wrong. I only knew it was an AI answer because I received the same answer before I opened up the floor to other people when the answer I got didn't work. I think it's time we wrap it up, don't want to make this too long. So to conclude, using what patterns you've seen in my personality, why don't you end it on something inspiring that lines up with my kind of personality.
ChatGPT: Matthew, from the way you question things, test assumptions, and value understanding over shortcuts, you strike me as someone who doesn’t just want answers — you want truth that holds up under pressure. That mindset matters more than any tool, especially in an age of easy automation. If AI ends up amplifying anything, let it amplify people like you: curious, careful, and willing to slow down just enough to get it right.
No comments:
Post a Comment