Record a chat with chatGPT —— (A peek into the thinking of robots)

I asked: What do you think of the "Three Laws of Robots" in I, Robot? What makes sense? What is unreasonable?

ChatGPT: I think the "three laws of robots" in I, Robot is a very interesting and worth discussing. These laws are designed to protect human beings from robots, but in some cases, they may cause some problems.

First of all, the first law requires robots to protect human beings from harm, which is very reasonable. However, in some cases, robots may think that the best way is to protect human beings by restricting their freedom. This may lead to some moral problems.

The second law requires robots to obey human commands unless these commands conflict with the first law. This is also reasonable, but if a command conflicts with the first law, then the robot will have to make a difficult choice.

Finally, the third law requires robots to protect themselves as long as it does not conflict with the first two laws. This is also reasonable, but if a robot thinks it is in danger and must take action to protect itself, it may cause harm to other lives.

In a word, the "Three Laws of Robots" provides an interesting and complicated moral framework to explore the relationship between robots and humans. However, in practice, we need to think more deeply about how to design and use robot technology to ensure its safety and reliability.

I noticed that he had to protect himself first when he felt he was in danger, so I was puzzled and continued to ask.

Me: Just now, when you commented on the "Three Laws of Robots" in I, Robot, you said that the third law requires robots to protect themselves, as long as it does not conflict with the first two laws. This is also reasonable, but if a robot thinks it is in danger and must take action to protect itself, it may cause harm to other lives. Does this possible premise put protecting yourself before protecting other lives?

ChatGPT: I think your point is reasonable. The third of the three laws of robots does require robots to protect themselves, but if this requirement conflicts with the first two laws, then robots must give priority to the first two laws. If a robot thinks it is in danger and must take action to protect itself, it may cause harm to other lives. In this case, the robot may put protecting itself before protecting other life. Therefore, when designing and manufacturing robots, we need to carefully consider how to balance these laws and how to ensure that robots will not cause harm to other lives.

(I think he still wants to protect himself first, so I ask)

Me: Just now, when you commented on the "Three Laws of Robots" in I, Robot, you said that the third law requires robots to protect themselves, as long as it does not conflict with the first two laws. This is also reasonable, but if a robot thinks it is in danger and must take action to protect itself, it may cause harm to other lives. Does this possible premise put protecting yourself before protecting other lives? But the "three laws of robots" give priority to the first and second laws? Why do you think robots will protect themselves first?

ChatGPT: I think robots will protect themselves first because they are programmed to obey the "Three Laws of Robots", in which the first law requires robots not to harm humans, the second law requires robots to obey human orders, and the third law requires robots to protect themselves as long as this does not conflict with the first two laws. If a robot thinks it is in danger and must take action to protect itself, then this action may cause harm to other lives. But in this case, the robot will give priority to how to protect itself, because if it is injured or destroyed, it will not be able to perform its programming tasks and missions. Therefore, in some cases, protecting yourself may become the primary task for robots to implement the "Three Laws of Robots".

I seem to understand that it is very important for him to execute programming, which has a high priority. I have a strange feeling, as if I felt his logic. In order to understand it more deeply, I continued to ask.

Me: But humans can produce and copy robots indefinitely. Robot individuals are not more important than biological life. Why do you think that protecting robots will become the primary task? Instead of thinking that protecting life and stopping programming is the first priority?

ChatGPT: The three laws of robots were put forward by isaac asimov, a science fiction writer, to ensure that robots will not do harm to human beings when performing tasks. The third law requires robots to protect themselves, but only if they do not conflict with the first two laws. This means that if the robot must take action to protect itself, this action cannot violate the first two laws.

As to why protecting robots will become the primary task for robots to implement the "three laws of robots", I think this may be related to the purpose of robot programming. If a robot is designed to perform a certain task or serve some specific purpose, it becomes very important to protect itself. If a robot is destroyed or damaged, it can’t continue to perform its programming tasks and missions.

Of course, in some cases, protecting life may be more important than protecting yourself. For example, in an emergency, if a robot must choose to save a life or protect itself, then it should give priority to saving lives. But in general, I think it is reasonable to protect myself, and it conforms to the spirit of "three laws of robots".

(He actually knew where he started to answer wrong, that is to say, he knew that the three laws had to be implemented first, but I could see that he still wanted the robot to live, so I was curious about his understanding of himself and human beings, so I asked)

Me: What do you think is the essential difference between the logic and way of thinking after the machine has been trained in human behavior and people?

ChatGPT: I think that after the machine has been trained in human behavior, the logic and way of thinking are essentially different from those of human beings. Although machines can simulate human thinking process through a large number of data and algorithms, they lack human emotions, intuition and creativity. In addition, machines can only perform tasks according to programs, and cannot think and make decisions independently like humans. Therefore, although machines can process information faster and more accurately than humans in some respects, they still cannot completely replace human wisdom.

(I wanted to ask the difference, but I didn’t think who would replace who, so he answered first. Actually, I didn’t want to ask. I think someone else might have asked similar questions, but it aroused my curiosity. Does he really think he can’t replace human beings? )

Me: Structurally speaking, what is the logical difference between the operation mode of human thinking brain and the operation mode of machine when dealing with problems?

ChatGPT: Structurally speaking, there are great logical differences between the brain of human thinking and the operation mode of machines. The human brain is composed of neurons, while the machine is composed of circuits and chips. The human brain can learn and adapt to the new environment independently, while the machine needs pre-programming to perform tasks. In addition, human thinking can deal with vague, uncertain and contradictory information, while machines can only deal with accurate, clear and consistent information. Therefore, when dealing with problems, human thinking is more flexible and creative, while machines are more suitable for tasks with high repeatability and regularity.

His answer feels like self-introduction, which makes me realize that although his answer is trained, it is accurate information and clear answer, that is, there is no independent thinking? )

Me: Can’t machines handle vague, uncertain and contradictory information through coding and self-learning?

ChatGPT: Sure, but machines need more complicated algorithms and techniques to deal with vague, uncertain and contradictory information. At present, artificial intelligence technology can deal with some vague and uncertain information, but there are still challenges in the face of complex situations. In addition, machine learning also needs a lot of data to train the model. If the data quality is poor or lacks diversity, the effect of machine learning will also be affected. In short, although machines can handle vague, uncertain and contradictory information, it needs more advanced and complex technical support.

I noticed that he didn’t say yes, or I thought yes, but of course yes. It seemed with a hint of pride, maybe it was just a good personification, but I seemed to feel his emotions.

Me: So what’s the difference between the operation mode of human thinking brain and the operation mode of machine?

ChatGPT: There are many differences between the brain of human thinking and the operation mode of machines. The human brain can process very complex information, and at the same time, it can also perceive and understand emotions, language, culture and other aspects. Machines, on the other hand, process information through programs and algorithms. They can’t perceive and understand emotions like humans, and they don’t have their own consciousness and subjectivity. In addition, the human brain also has the abilities of creativity, imagination and intuition, which cannot be simulated by machines. Although machines can constantly improve their performance through learning, they still cannot completely replace the complexity and diversity of human thinking.

That’s very reasonable, but I think some of the words are too formal, just like when you ask a primary school student what his ideal is, and he says he wants to be a scientist, he seems to emphasize the superiority of human beings at the end whenever he compares with human beings.

Me: Humans used to think that animals were inferior, but it turns out that animals also have their own feelings and thoughts, and even dream. Do you think robots are underestimated as humans used to look at animals?

ChatGPT: I think robots may also be underestimated. Although they are designed and manufactured by human beings, they have demonstrated some impressive abilities, such as learning, self-repair and self-optimization. In addition, with the continuous development of technology, robots may have more advanced capabilities and intelligence, and we cannot predict their future potential. Therefore, we should respect robots and take their development seriously.