This continues a fascinating yet troubling discussion with ChatGPT. Previously the AI model postulated that “the most intellectually honest form of analysis is: here are both sides; here are the criteria by which I'm judging them; here is how each performs against those criteria; and here is how the conclusion changes if we change the criteria.”
AI: That makes the reasoning auditable rather than asking you to trust my conclusion. And that connects quite closely with the learning continuum we have previously discussed: perceiving → analyzing → evaluating → understanding → wisdom.
Me: Where are you on this continuum?
AI: I would place myself primarily between Analyzing and Evaluating, with important elements of the other levels. My capabilities map onto it interestingly.
· Perceiving: I can gather and interpret information, but my perception is mediated by data and language rather than direct experience.
· Analyzing: I can break problems into components, compare evidence, identify assumptions and relationships.
· Evaluating: I can evaluate alternatives against explicit criteria, but I don't originate the ultimate values that establish those criteria.
· Understanding: This is where I need qualification. I can model and articulate Understanding, but whether that constitutes human understanding is a philosophical question.
· Wisdom: This is where I would draw the line. I can synthesize knowledge and experience-based principles, but Wisdom involves judgment, values, lived experience, character, and consequences over time.
AI: But there's a fascinating complication. AI may actually be changing the meaning of this continuum. For AI it isn't simply a ladder of more knowledge. It appears to be a progression from receiving reality to processing reality to acting on reality to judging reality. And that makes Wisdom qualitatively different from the preceding levels.
AI: AI can potentially become extraordinarily capable at Perceiving, Analysis, and Evaluation. But that doesn't automatically produce Wisdom. Why? Because Wisdom requires answering questions such as: What is worth pursuing? What should we value? When should we act? When should we refrain from acting? What consequences are acceptable? Those aren't solved simply by having more information or greater analytical power.
AI: And that brings us back to your previous question about "better." I can evaluate better once you give me a criterion. Wisdom may be what enables a person to determine which criteria deserve to govern the decision in the first place.
AI: That suggests something potentially important for the continuum: Evaluation can determine what is better according to a standard. Wisdom can determine which standards are worth following. If that distinction holds up, Wisdom isn't merely the highest rung of your ladder. It may be the level that gives meaning and direction to all the rungs below it.
“Who is wise and understanding among you?” – James 3:13.
Crawford is an author and syndicated columnist from Jackson.
3 comments:
Who is bill crawford?
This boomer really thinks he is having a conversation instead of receiving glorified search results from reddit and google. I hope he invests all of his retirement savings into AI
Since Bill Crawford’s last 2 columns have been AI/ChatGPT related, both ending with a Bible verse, here’s some of ChatGPT’s response to the question: “Based on Christianity, what would Jesus say about the crime we tolerate resulting in the deaths of innocent children?”
ChatGPT: “Based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, I believe the answer would be a sobering one: Jesus
would condemn our indifference to the deaths of children, challenge our willingness to tolerate
preventable violence, and hold those with the power to protect the innocent accountable for
what they allow to happen.
We cannot know precisely what Jesus would say about today's particular crimes, laws, or
political controversies. But the Gospels give us a remarkably clear picture of his attitude toward children, violence, injustice, and the responsibilities of those entrusted with authority.
1. Jesus placed children among those society must protect
Jesus said in Matthew 18:6:
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." —
Matthew 18:6, KJV
The language is extraordinarily severe. Jesus was warning against causing spiritual harm to
children and those who are vulnerable. Although the passage is not specifically about modern
criminal violence, its moral force is unmistakable: harming the innocent is a grave matter, not something to dismiss as an unfortunate cost of living in society.
Imagine applying that principle to a child killed by an act of violence that might have been
prevented. The question would not end with the identity of the person who pulled the trigger.
It would also concern whether those responsible for protecting children took their
responsibilities seriously.”
ChatGPT’s response continues: “Jesus condemned a faith that fails to produce action.”
There was a time, not that long ago, a murdered 2-year old, 2 children dying from stray bullets within only a 10 day period, OR the murder of 6-year old Kingston Frazier, would have sent shock waves throughout our Jackson, MS area. And it would NOT have been tolerated and normalized. Yet, not a peep from scripture quoting Bill Crawford, not a peep from Sid Salter (more concerned with botched executions of evil doers) not a peep from the white liberals that turned Jackson over to criminals, not a peep from local ministers, and almost nothing at all from even local Republicans.
We should all be ashamed of ourselves, having become politically divided enough to accept the deaths of unable to protect themselves, innocent, helpless children - as just being the cost of doing political business.
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:6, KJV
Post a Comment