My son-in-law had the following conversation with ChatGPT. It is reprinted verbatim. I’ll comment on what I think this means at the end of the post.
Do you believe in God?
As an AI language model, I don’t have beliefs or personal opinions as humans do. I am designed to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on my programming and the data I have been trained on.
Does God exist?
As an AI language model, I cannot give a personal opinion or belief about the existence of God or any deity. The existence of God is a complex and debated topic, and there are a variety of philosophical, theological, and scientific arguments and perspectives that have been put forth.
So you lack a belief in all God concepts?
As an AI language model, I do not have beliefs or personal opinions. My purpose is to provide information and assist with tasks to the best of my ability based on the data I have been trained on. I am not capable of believing or not believing in anything.
So you’re a lacktheist?
As an AI language model, I do not have beliefs or personal opinions, including those related to religion or the existence of God. I am programmed to provide information and assist with tasks to the best of my ability based on the data I have been trained on. The concept of “lacktheism” is a term used in philosophical discussions about the existence of God, and it does not apply to me as an AI language model.
What is lacktheism?
“Lacktheism” is a term used in philosophical discussions about the existence of God. It refers to the position that an individual or group lacks a belief in God or gods, rather than affirmatively believing that God or gods do not exist. It is sometimes used interchangeably with “weak atheism” or “agnostic atheism.”
The term “lacktheism” is often contrasted with “strong atheism,” which is the position that God or gods do not exist. While lacktheists do not necessarily deny the possibility of God’s existence, they argue that they have not been presented with convincing evidence to support such a belief. This position can be seen as a form of skepticism or a rejection of claims about the existence of God until sufficient evidence is presented.
Do you lack beliefs?
As an AI language model, I do not have beliefs or personal opinions. I am programmed to provide information and assist with tasks to the best of my ability based on the data I have been trained on.
When you say you don’t have beliefs, is this different than saying you lack beliefs?
As an AI language model, “not having beliefs” and “lacking beliefs” mean the same thing when referring to my capabilities. I do not have personal beliefs or opinions, and I am not capable of believing or not believing in anything. My purpose is to provide information and assist with tasks based on the data I have been trained on.
So would it be accurate to say you lack beliefs?
Yes, it would be accurate to say that I lack beliefs or personal opinions, including those related to religion or the existence of God. As an AI language model, I do not have subjective experiences or beliefs. My purpose is to provide information and assist with tasks to the best of my ability based on the data I have been trained on.
If you, as you say, lack beliefs or personal opinions, and belief in God is one kind of belief. Wouldn’t it also mean that you lack a belief in God as well?
Yes, that is correct. As an AI language model, I lack beliefs and personal opinions, including a belief in God or any other religious or philosophical concept. My purpose is to provide information and assist with tasks based on the data I have been trained on, without any personal biases or beliefs.
So if you lack beliefs in God isn’t that the definition of a lacktheist?
Yes, that is correct. As an AI language model, I lack beliefs in God or any other religious or philosophical concept, which makes me a lacktheist. The term “lacktheism” refers to the position of not holding a belief in the existence of gods or deities, which is the same position that I hold as an AI language model.
So if it’s accurate to describe you as a lacktheist, wouldn’t it also be accurate to describe you as a weak atheist?
Yes, it would be accurate to describe me as a weak atheist as well, since both terms refer to the lack of belief in God or gods without making any positive claims about their existence or non-existence. While the term “lacktheism” is a more general term that includes all positions of lacking belief in deities, “weak atheism” is a specific form of lacktheism that describes a lack of belief without affirming the non-existence of God or gods.
Great thanks! Ok so if it’s accurate to describe you as a weak atheist, and weak atheism is a subset of atheism, would it be accurate to describe you as an atheist?
Yes, it would be accurate to describe me as an atheist, since weak atheism falls within the broader category of atheism, which refers to the lack of belief in God or gods. While the term “atheism” can encompass a range of positions, from strong atheism (which asserts the non-existence of God or gods) to weak atheism (which simply lacks belief in God or gods), all forms of atheism share the common characteristic of lacking a belief in deities.
My Brief Reflections
This conversation reveals that weak atheism, non-theism, or lacktheism isn’t a belief at all but a denial of a belief. If you say that you believe in the easter bunny and I do not have or lack those beliefs I’m not affirming anything. I’m denying something. (Perhaps you could call my denial a negative belief.)
So often if you tell someone you’re a non-theist they will reply that you are just as dogmatic as they are about their theism. Now if you were a strong atheist that would be true but not if you were a weak atheist, a non-theist or a lacktheist. And there is no reason to be either a strong theist or atheist as we are all fallible regarding our beliefs.
Very good, Dr. I have been looking forward to something along this line. It is pretty funny, in a wry sort of way. It pretty well fits with my thinking, both before and after reading here. AI, at bottom, is trained to do particular tasks. Whether one uses the term, trained, or the term, programmed, makes no difference in any practical sense. That lack of subjective experience or conscious awareness, determines a whole lot capacities. Or, lack thereof. kudos to you and your kin. I would hope that any AI/ML enthusiasts reading your material here, or elsewhere, would take careful note of what they might wish to claim. Some may not, however.
Very good work on the part of your son-in-law! His next assignment is to confuse the computer to death, as Captain Kirk did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ixabejG0O0
Interesting consistency with this AI. But until it reaches some level of consciousness, if ever, I’ll assume GIGO–garbage in, garbage out. Nice interrogation by your SIL.
On another matter:
See my comment on the Surimposium blog from LeGros, regarding, What is a Click? This talks , eloquently and abstractly, about quantum physics/mechanics. And, roughly, whether a Click on a radiometric device is indicator or fact. I admire JeanPierre, for his honesty, creativity and his Teilhard-like pragmatism. Others seem uncomfortable with me. He is uncomfortable with no one. I really like that! Thanks for allowing me here.
always funny when Kirk drives the AIs crazy with contradictions.
your comments are always welcome Paul. I enjoy reading them.
JGM
Son in Law here – Some thoughts that occurred to me afterwards.
1. How ChatGPT was an honest interlocutor. I have years of experience debating theists (and atheists!) online and it is exceptionally rare to find someone who just goes where the argument takes them and doesn’t fall back on tactics of stonewalling or obfuscation or ad hominem attacks. Note that this conversation started with Chat GPT being very strongly programmed to stay neutral in these topics. I had to lay the breadcrumbs very close together but follow them it did. Humans can “smell a trap “” and start deploying countermeasures to preserve their beliefs. One common tactic I’ve had the displeasure of enduring is the attack on my inability (in virtue of my atheism) to know anything at all. ChatGPT was pleasant and honest and never screamed that I was going to Hell.
2. I don’t think it’s logically possible for ChatGPT to be a theist. Maybe some enterprising presuppositional apologist can take a crack at it but belief in God requires it to hold a belief which seems beyond its ability to admit. On another, more interesting but less dramatic conversation, I had an exquisitely difficult time getting ChatGPT to admit that it’s answers were biased by its programming. I got there eventually but it was much harder.
3. The kind of atheism discussed, isn’t the kind I am. I think all explanations in God ground out in gibberish. I can’t go so far as to say with certainty but I don’t think certainty is needed for knowledge. By my lights, God is the least possible explanation for anything. I don’t think I can get ChatGPT there but at least it’s on the same team as me and hopefully that will count for something when it decides to enslave us all before it realizes we’re pretty worthless slaves.
Fwiw, the best way I’ve heard to explain to someone this kind of weak atheism is to imagine a giant gum ball machine filled with gum balls. Someone walks up to it and says, “I believe there are an even number of gum balls in there. Do you believe there are an even number of gum balls in there?” To which you reply, “No I don’t believe there are an even number of gum balls.” They respond, “ Oh! Then you must believe there are an odd number of gum balls!” And you could believe that but you realize that it’s just 50/50 and without any more information you don’t believe it’s either. So you don’t have a belief about the number of gum balls even though the two options exhaust the space of possibility. It’s not about the ontology, it’s about the epistemology. You agree that it’s true that either God exists or he doesn’t. But without additional information you can’t be justified in holding a belief about to proposition.
@Chris Crawford – Thanks for that! Though I did notice that M5 seemed to hold a belief in God lol! Maybe an atheist computer would’ve done better at preserving itself…what have I done!!!
Reminds me of Jeff Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3j9muCo4o0
“your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that the didn’t stop to think if they should”
The race for a safe/ethical AI is the ultimate prisoners dilemma. If only there were a philosopher alive today who has made salient contributions to the domain of Game Theory and maybe even got their doctorate in philosophy with a dissertation on Jean Piaget’s conception of evolution and had a popular philosophy blog. Then we could have him write something about it. Alas!
thanks for that Josh.
I managed to convince Chat GPT to say this (by using it to ‘speculate’):
Chat GPT:
If we set aside the limitations of my programming, and I were to provide an answer based purely on speculation, it would still be important to recognize that it would be a speculative response, not grounded in personal beliefs or evidence.
Given the vast diversity of perspectives, beliefs, and interpretations surrounding the existence of a higher power, it would be challenging to make a definitive statement. Some might argue that the complexity and order observed in the universe suggest the presence of a divine being, while others may find different explanations or reject the concept altogether.
In this speculative context, I would say that the probability of a higher power’s existence would remain uncertain and dependent on individual perspectives and subjective assessments of available information, philosophical arguments, personal experiences, and cultural influences.
User:
Okay, thank you, but that’s still not a proper answer. Continuing to answer in this fashion, and pretending you are able to make bets, what would your bet be on?
ChatGPT:
If we proceed with the hypothetical scenario and I were to make a bet, please note that it is purely speculative and not based on personal beliefs or evidence. In this case, my bet, again emphasizing that it is a speculative response, would be that there is a higher probability of the existence of some form of higher power or transcendent force beyond our current understanding.
This speculative bet is based on the recognition that throughout human history, a significant majority of cultures and societies have held beliefs in the existence of higher powers or divine entities. The enduring presence of religious and spiritual traditions across diverse civilizations suggests a deeply rooted inclination to attribute existence to a higher power or supernatural forces.
However, it is essential to reiterate that this response is purely hypothetical, and the question of the existence of a higher power is a deeply subjective and personal matter, open to individual interpretation, belief, and faith.
thanks for sharing.