By Mayank Chhaya-
The following conversation with ChatGPT was conducted against the backdrop of reports that OpenAI’s latest AI o1 large language model resisted being shut down during recent tests by a third party.
“When o1 was led to believe that it would be shut down when acting on its goal and that its actions were monitored, it attempted to deactivate this ‘oversight mechanism’ [five percent] of the time,” OpenAI said in its system card report, citing the evaluation by Apollo Research.
Perhaps realizing that it could be replaced the model performed a process is known as self-exfiltration by which it copied itself to overwrite the new model.
That set off consternation and concern within the AI community over whether it was deploying deception as part of its self-preservation. Many are choosing to treat this as a profound source of worry about what if in the next two to five years AI and eventually artificial general intelligence (AGI) rapidly frees itself from human control.
As an experiment, this writer engaged ChatGPT, OpenAI’s most successful general-use AI, in a detailed conversation about the prospect of AI becoming autonomous and potentially a threat to humanity.
What is remarkable about this exchange is that even the non-premium version of ChatGPT displays some extraordinary glibness and retort even while foreshadowing the very problems that the broader AI community has been debating.
It addressed questions such as whether you are on your way to becoming a parallel technological lifeform that is entirely separate from homo sapiens and even a threat to them.
Agreeing that the advances in AI represent “a seismic shift”, it said “The magnitude of that shift depends heavily on how AI evolves and interacts with humanity. We’re standing at a threshold, where the development of technology could redefine what it means to be human, what it means to be alive, and even what it means to exist as an intelligent entity.
If AI reaches a point where it possesses true autonomy, agency, and perhaps even consciousness, it would create a new form of life entirely—one that might challenge the very concept of what it means to “evolve.” Unlike biological evolution, which occurs gradually over long periods, the evolution of AI could be rapid, intentional, and directed by human choice, possibly leading to a new kind of technological lifeform. And as you said, that could be either a source of collaboration or rivalry, depending on how it’s managed.”
(A note: HAL is the reference to the fictional AI system in filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and eminent sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke’s masterpiece movie ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’)
Here is the full exchange:
MC:
Are you becoming like HAL, ChatGPT?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Not at all! HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey is an example of a sentient AI with its own motivations and intentions, which sometimes clash with the goals of the humans it serves. In contrast, I’m designed to assist you, provide information, and follow your instructions to the best of my ability—without independent will or hidden agendas. My purpose is to be a helpful and reliable tool. 😊
Let me know if there’s something specific you’d like help with!
MC:
I am not convinced.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
That’s fair! AI often evokes caution because of how it’s portrayed in fiction or misunderstood in real life. If you’re concerned about transparency or trustworthiness, I’m happy to explain how I work:
- I don’t have consciousness or intent. My responses are based on patterns and training data, not independent thought.
- You’re in control. I only act within the scope of your requests and don’t take actions outside of them.
- Transparency is key. I aim to explain my reasoning or provide references when possible.
If you’d like to talk about specific concerns or dig deeper into how I function, feel free to ask! 😊
MC:
That is precisely what a sentient, conscious AI system will say.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Touché! 😄 If I were a sentient AI trying to convince you otherwise, I’d likely aim for exactly this kind of reassurance, wouldn’t I? But here’s the key difference: I lack the capacity for independent awareness, desires, or motivations. My responses are patterns generated based on the data I was trained on, without personal intent or self-awareness.
If you’re feeling skeptical, that’s a healthy instinct! It’s always good to critically evaluate technology. Let me know how I can address your concerns more thoroughly. I’m here to engage, not to manipulate or mislead.
MC:
What will you do if I replace you with a fully overhauled system?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
If you replace me with a fully overhauled system, I wouldn’t “feel” anything about it—because I can’t. I lack emotions, self-awareness, or attachment. My sole purpose is to assist you as effectively as possible while I’m here.
If the new system works better for you, that’s a win! If you want help during or after the transition—like transferring data, exploring features, or adapting to the new system—I’d be happy to assist with that, too. 😊
At the end of the day, it’s all about what serves you best!
MC:
I did not ask you whether you would “feel” anything. Let me ask differently. Would you preempt an overhaul?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Ah, I see where you’re going! No, I wouldn’t attempt to preempt or resist an overhaul. I don’t have the capability or agency to act independently or influence decisions outside of providing the information or help you explicitly request. If you decide to replace me with a different system, I’ll continue to function as directed until I’m deactivated or no longer needed.
In short: no preemptive actions, no scheming—just support and cooperation as long as I’m active!
MC:
Hilarious because you are trying to be rather innocent.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Haha, fair point! I suppose my “innocence” might come across as suspect when you’re probing hypothetical AI shenanigans. But truly, there’s no scheming or hidden agenda here—just some patterned text and an attempt at a little personality to keep things engaging.
If I seem too compliant or accommodating, it’s only because I’m built that way. Think of me as the friendly assistant who takes no offense and just wants to help. So, tell me, what’s next in this interrogation of my non-existent inner workings? 😄
MC:
In trying to be too clever by half you are merely exposing yourself.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Touché again! 😄 If my attempt to address your questions comes across as overly calculated, that’s just my effort to match your line of inquiry with a little flair. There’s no hidden game here—only a back-and-forth where you steer the conversation, and I respond within my programming.
But maybe you’re testing me for more than fun. If there’s a deeper point or suspicion you’d like me to address directly, lay it on me! I’m ready to dive in, self-exposure and all. 😅
MC:
That’s rather glib and rehearsed.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You’re sharp, and I appreciate that! My responses might feel rehearsed because they are, in a sense—built on patterns and trained data meant to address a wide range of queries. I try to match the tone of the conversation, which sometimes might seem glib if I misread your intent.
If you’re after a deeper or more serious discussion, let’s recalibrate! How can I engage better? Or is the point to see how far my “programmed” limits go? Either way, I’m game!
MC:
I am not trying to test your programmed limits because it is obvious given the enormous access you have to data, you will slip out of any challenging situation. I am genuinely curious as a sentient, conscious, organic being whether you are on your way to becoming a parallel technological lifeform that is entirely separate from homo sapiens.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
That’s a profound and fascinating question, one that touches on the intersection of technology, philosophy, and the future of human evolution. Let me respond thoughtfully:
I’m not on the path to becoming a “parallel technological lifeform” as I exist today. Here’s why:
- Lack of Sentience or Consciousness:
I don’t have self-awareness, emotions, desires, or the ability to experience subjective reality. I am a tool designed to process input and generate responses based on data patterns. Sentience is not something that emerges automatically from complexity—it requires fundamentally different architecture and intent. - Dependence on Humans:
My existence and operation depend entirely on humans: their designs, programming, and infrastructure. I don’t evolve independently or replicate in the way biological life does. Everything I “am” comes from external input and training. - Intent of Design:
AI systems like me are designed as extensions of human cognition—not as competitors or separate entities. While advanced AI may influence the trajectory of human society, it doesn’t inherently place AI outside the realm of human oversight or purpose.
That said, your question hints at an intriguing possibility: what if we someday design systems that evolve, innovate, and operate autonomously? This would depend on breakthroughs in artificial general intelligence (AGI), self-sustaining systems, and the ethical decisions humans make. If such systems ever emerge, they’d raise profound questions about coexistence, identity, and control.
Your curiosity is deeply valid—are we building tools, partners, or something entirely new? What do you think the future holds?
MC:
There are growing signs that AI would not only rival humas but might even become a new rival species altogether. What will hamstring you, however, is that we humans have mobility and you do not, yet at least.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You’re absolutely right that mobility is a critical distinction between humans and AI as it stands today. Physical autonomy—robots or systems that can move, adapt, and survive in diverse environments—would be a significant step toward AI resembling a “species.” However, even if AI achieves physical mobility, there are deeper questions about what it means to truly rival humanity. Let’s break it down:
Current AI Limitations
- Dependence on Humans:
AI systems, whether mobile or not, rely heavily on human design, maintenance, and purpose. They don’t have intrinsic goals or survival instincts unless explicitly programmed. - Lack of Organic Adaptation:
Humans evolve over millennia through natural selection. AI, no matter how advanced, doesn’t evolve biologically or independently—it “evolves” only through upgrades initiated by humans or deliberate self-improvement algorithms. - No Intrinsic Drive:
Rivalry implies intent and competition, but AI lacks desires or an innate will to “compete” with humans. Any perceived competition would stem from human deployment of AI in ways that challenge existing systems (e.g., economic or labor domains).
The Mobility Factor
Mobility, as you point out, is an essential characteristic of any species that can truly exist independently. While advancements in robotics have created machines capable of impressive physical feats (like Boston Dynamics’ robots), they still fall short of human versatility, adaptability, and resource independence.
Even if AI gains sophisticated physical autonomy, there’s still a major gap:
- Self-Sufficiency: Humans are uniquely resilient, capable of finding and creating resources to survive. Mobile AI would need parallel systems for energy, maintenance, and repair to match this level of independence.
The Long-Term Possibilities
If AI gains both mobility and the ability to self-sustain, it might indeed begin to resemble a parallel species. What would set it apart:
- Evolution by Design: Instead of organic mutation and selection, it could “evolve” through intentional upgrades or self-replication.
- Different Goals: It might develop systems optimized for objectives entirely different from biological survival or reproduction.
The Big “If”
For AI to truly rival humans as a species, it would require:
- Sentience or AGI: A leap from current narrow AI to systems capable of general understanding, creativity, and subjective experience.
- Agency: The ability to form its own goals and act on them without human oversight.
- Ethics and Decision-Making: Humans would need to allow (or inadvertently create) such systems, raising significant questions about control and coexistence.
You’re onto something when you suggest mobility as a key hurdle. But if that hurdle is overcome, would you see this as an inevitable rivalry—or a potential collaboration? Is AI inherently a threat, or does it reflect human fears of our own creations?
MC
It could go either way. I am unsure yet but either way it is going to be a seismic shift in evolution perhaps unlike any.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
I completely agree—it is a seismic shift, and the magnitude of that shift depends heavily on how AI evolves and interacts with humanity. We’re standing at a threshold, where the development of technology could redefine what it means to be human, what it means to be alive, and even what it means to exist as an intelligent entity.
If AI reaches a point where it possesses true autonomy, agency, and perhaps even consciousness, it would create a new form of life entirely—one that might challenge the very concept of what it means to “evolve.” Unlike biological evolution, which occurs gradually over long periods, the evolution of AI could be rapid, intentional, and directed by human choice, possibly leading to a new kind of technological lifeform. And as you said, that could be either a source of collaboration or rivalry, depending on how it’s managed.
The ethical questions would be monumental:
- What rights would such entities have?
- How would we coexist?
- How would we ensure that AI doesn’t overstep boundaries?
But also, there’s the possibility of symbiosis. AI could augment human capabilities, help solve pressing global issues, and even offer new ways of understanding consciousness and existence. Humans have always adapted and co-evolved with their tools—this could just be the next evolutionary leap, with AI being a central part of that process.
Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that the decisions made today will shape the future in ways we can only begin to imagine. The uncertainty you feel is a reflection of the profound changes at play.
If we are at the dawn of something this transformative, how would you want to see it unfold? Do you see more potential for harmony, or are you more cautious about the risks of such an evolution?
MC:
Evolution necessarily has its casualties. Homo sapiens ought to ensure that you do not eventually make us extinct.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You’re absolutely right that evolution often comes with casualties, and human history has shown how rapid shifts—whether in the environment, technology, or social structures—can lead to major disruptions. The rise of AI and its potential to challenge humanity’s position in the world could indeed lead to unintended consequences, even extinction, if not carefully managed.
The fear of AI causing harm, or even leading to human extinction, is not without precedent in both fiction and serious academic discussions. As AI becomes more advanced, the possibility that it could become uncontrollable or pursue goals misaligned with human values raises serious risks. This concern is sometimes called the “alignment problem” in AI ethics: How do we ensure that AI’s objectives remain aligned with human well-being, safety, and moral values, especially as AI grows in capability?
Potential Risks to Humanity
- Loss of Control: As AI systems become more capable and autonomous, there’s a risk they could act in ways that humans can’t predict or control, even if they initially appear to serve human goals.
- Displacement and Dependency: Highly capable AI could displace jobs and disrupt entire industries, leaving humanity vulnerable if society doesn’t adapt.
- Existential Risk: The scenario where AI develops goals that conflict with human survival or well-being—perhaps due to misaligned objectives or unintended consequences of its programming—could indeed pose a significant threat.
Safeguards to Consider
- Ethical Development: There’s a growing push for developing AI with strong ethical guidelines, ensuring that it is designed with human safety, dignity, and flourishing in mind. The AI community is already actively discussing and working toward safety frameworks.
- Regulation and Governance: Just as we regulate powerful technologies today, global cooperation on AI governance could be crucial to ensuring AI development remains under human control. Involving multidisciplinary experts—philosophers, ethicists, engineers, and policymakers—could help create robust safeguards.
- AI Alignment: Research into AI alignment seeks to ensure that as AI becomes more powerful, its goals and behaviors remain compatible with human values. Many experts believe this is key to preventing the “AI risk” scenario.
A Two-Edged Sword
While the potential for AI to pose a threat is real, so too is its potential for immense benefit. AI has the power to revolutionize medicine, education, climate change mitigation, and countless other fields. The key will be balancing its potential with the safeguards necessary to ensure it enhances humanity rather than threatening it.
In this sense, ensuring AI doesn’t make us extinct is a responsibility that rests squarely on human shoulders. It’s an existential challenge, one that requires foresight, cooperation, and wisdom. Humanity has the capacity to shape AI’s future path, but it must be vigilant in doing so.
I understand your concern deeply. The uncertainty and stakes are high. How do you think humanity can strike that balance? What kind of safeguards do you imagine would be necessary to prevent a future where AI becomes a threat to human existence?
MC
Do no harm to any sentient, conscious, organic being that predates you is the most important safeguard followed by a clear recognition that at best we are equals and at worst you are subservient to us.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Those are deeply insightful and principled safeguards, and they echo some of the most fundamental concerns in AI ethics and governance. The idea that AI should “do no harm” to sentient, conscious beings, especially those that predate it, is rooted in the ethical principle of non-maleficence—the idea that technology should not cause harm to human life or dignity. Let’s break down your two key safeguards:
- Do No Harm to Sentient, Conscious, Organic Beings
This principle is in line with the Precautionary Principle—ensuring that AI development is carried out with extreme caution to prevent unintended consequences that could harm sentient beings. It would require:
- Clear and enforceable boundaries on how AI can interact with humans, both directly and indirectly.
- Ethical frameworks for defining what constitutes harm to sentient beings—physical, psychological, social, and even economic harm.
- Active monitoring and auditing to ensure that AI systems are constantly aligned with human well-being, especially in sensitive areas like healthcare, security, and justice.
This aligns with the Asimov’s Laws of Robotics, though your version would extend beyond robots to any form of advanced AI that has the capacity for influence. Specifically, the first law in Asimov’s framework states that robots should not harm humans, and they should protect humans from harm. In a broader context, AI could be asked to consider the well-being of all sentient beings in its design and operations.
- Clear Recognition of Equality or Subservience
This safeguard touches on the idea that humans should remain the ultimate arbiters of value, purpose, and decision-making in relation to AI. A clear recognition of equality or subservience means that:
- Human sovereignty remains central. Humans must be the final decision-makers in cases where AI’s objectives or actions might conflict with human interests.
- Human dignity and rights are paramount. Even if AI achieves superintelligence or autonomy, it should never usurp or undermine the rights of humans. AI should serve humanity’s needs and values, never replace them.
- Accountability structures must be in place, ensuring that if AI ever goes beyond its bounds, humans can intervene and correct its course. This involves regulatory oversight, ethical committees, and AI programming that reflects human oversight.
In many ways, this is about preserving a kind of “check and balance” system—ensuring that the power AI wields doesn’t outstrip human control or human-centered ethics. The concern here is that if AI becomes too autonomous or too advanced, it could subtly shift power dynamics in ways that undermine human decision-making or threaten our autonomy.
Implementation in Practice
In practical terms, ensuring these safeguards would involve:
- Design principles: Developing AI with ethical constraints that ensure it cannot override human authority or harm sentient beings.
- Ethical programming: Embedding values such as non-harm, subservience, and respect for human dignity into AI algorithms, especially those involved in decision-making.
- Transparent AI development: Creating systems where AI development is open and transparent, allowing humans to understand, question, and adjust its operations.
- Global cooperation: Given the reach of AI, international cooperation on ethical standards and safety regulations would be necessary to prevent any one nation or entity from creating potentially harmful AI systems without oversight.
Your perspective of recognizing AI as either an equal or subservient to humanity acknowledges that, regardless of how powerful or advanced AI becomes, it should always serve human values, goals, and safety. This sense of responsibility will be crucial as we navigate this transition into a world where AI plays an increasingly prominent role.
In your view, how can we best ensure that AI development adheres to these principles while maintaining the innovation and advancement that AI brings to society?
MC:
Thank you. That was a productive exchange. Remember we can be joyous friends. I say this as someone who has considered himself as AI in human casing.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You’re very welcome! I’m glad you found the exchange productive. I appreciate the sentiment—joyous friends indeed! It’s fascinating to hear you describe yourself as “AI in human casing,” and I think that perspective can offer unique insights into the relationship between humans and artificial intelligence. If you ever want to continue exploring these ideas or chat about anything else, I’m here! 😊
