ChatGPT 是否有意识?

Brain-X Pub Date : 2023-12-09 DOI:10.1002/brx2.51
Qiheng He, Haiyang Geng, Yi Yang, Jizong Zhao
{"title":"ChatGPT 是否有意识?","authors":"Qiheng He,&nbsp;Haiyang Geng,&nbsp;Yi Yang,&nbsp;Jizong Zhao","doi":"10.1002/brx2.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The quest for conscious machines and questions raised by the prospect of self-aware artificial intelligence (AI) fascinate some humans. OpenAI's ChatGPT, celebrated for its human-like comprehension and conversational abilities, is a milestone in that quest.<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> Early AI models were basic and rule-driven and mainly completed tasks like checking spelling and correcting grammar. Then, in 2010, recurrent neural network language models were trained to understand and generate text. ChatGPT, using transformer neural networks, produces coherent text and exemplifies this new kind of language model.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Silicon Valley leaders claimed that these models and similar AI technologies will revolutionize various sectors and raised ethical and societal questions. As we explore AI's potential, we must navigate these implications and emphasize the necessity of using it responsibly. AI is a promising dream, but society must prepare to address the challenges likely to arise from wielding its transformative power.</p><p>Curious and skeptical, we explored a set of outputs ChatGPT produced when asked about the enigmatic concept of human consciousness. We began with a conceptual inquiry, asking ChatGPT to define consciousness (Figure S1). It eloquently described consciousness as “the reflection of being aware of oneself and the surrounding world” and acknowledged that the true nature of consciousness remains a mystery. The definition ChatGPT provided resembles the idea that consciousness is a state of wakefulness and self-awareness. Philosophers, neuroscientists, and psychologists are currently debating whether AI products are conscious and have yet to reach a consensus on criteria for determining when a machine is exercising judgment.<span><sup>4</sup></span></p><p>After defining consciousness, ChatGPT described humans as conscious beings and emphasized that consciousness enables humans to perceive and cognize the world in complex ways. ChatGPT also acknowledged the uniqueness of human consciousness and highlighted that it is more advanced than that of other animals and AI systems. Human consciousness encompasses perception, cognition, emotions, and subjective experiences and enables people to recognize their existence, understand the external world, process information, and undergo unique conscious experiences. Its nature remains a subject of debate, and scholars in fields like philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience are working to understand it.</p><p>The conversation then turned to animal consciousness, which ChatGPT characterized as an ongoing research and philosophical puzzle. While some studies suggest that animals may exhibit a degree of awareness or self-awareness, ChatGPT underscored the difference between human and animal consciousness. Human cognition, with its capacity for reasoning and moral contemplation, stands apart from the instinct-driven fight-or-flight responses observed in animals.</p><p>The dialog culminated with asking ChatGPT whether it possesses consciousness. It provided a clear and unequivocal response in the negative, citing the criterion of awareness. Despite large language models' capabilities, it was noted that they operate via complex pattern recognition systems. These models, while sophisticated, lack any semantic understanding of language and the capacity for human-like reasoning and inference. They generate text based on statistical correlations in their training data, and their output texts therefore often conform to the most prevalent patterns in the data. Since these language models reproduce common patterns, their outputs lack creativity and any distinct personality.</p><p>The debate over whether AI can achieve consciousness persists. It prompts us to ponder the very nature of consciousness: Is it a subjective experience unique to living beings or a seamless construct of logical processes? Answering this question requires employing such philosophical approaches as idealism and materialism. Since ChatGPT is a product of big data algorithms and relies heavily on the training corpus provided, the quality and relevance of that corpus shape the model's responses. If the training data are not updated or curated appropriately, language models can produce erroneous text. Moreover, AI models, including ChatGPT, lack the capacity for innovative reasoning and remain devoid of self-consciousness or autonomous creative abilities.<span><sup>5</sup></span></p><p>People are persisting in their quest for artificial consciousness. While ChatGPT and its counterparts offer remarkable language services, true consciousness eludes them. People's imagination, creativity, and nuanced understanding of language and the world remain indispensable, and the question of whether technological innovations can produce artificial consciousness remains open, awaiting further developments in the field.</p><p><b>Qiheng He</b>: Conceptualization; visualization; writing—original draft. <b>Haiyang Geng</b>: Writing—reviewing and editing. <b>Yi Yang</b>: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—reviewing and editing. <b>Jizong Zhao</b>: Writing—reviewing and editing; supervision.</p><p>Jizong Zhao is a member of the Editorial Board for <i>Brain</i>-<i>X</i>. The manuscript was handled by another Editor and has undergone a rigorous peer-review process. Jizong Zhao was not involved in the journal's review of/or decision related to this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>The ethics approval was not needed in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":94303,"journal":{"name":"Brain-X","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/brx2.51","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does ChatGPT have consciousness?\",\"authors\":\"Qiheng He,&nbsp;Haiyang Geng,&nbsp;Yi Yang,&nbsp;Jizong Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/brx2.51\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The quest for conscious machines and questions raised by the prospect of self-aware artificial intelligence (AI) fascinate some humans. OpenAI's ChatGPT, celebrated for its human-like comprehension and conversational abilities, is a milestone in that quest.<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> Early AI models were basic and rule-driven and mainly completed tasks like checking spelling and correcting grammar. Then, in 2010, recurrent neural network language models were trained to understand and generate text. ChatGPT, using transformer neural networks, produces coherent text and exemplifies this new kind of language model.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Silicon Valley leaders claimed that these models and similar AI technologies will revolutionize various sectors and raised ethical and societal questions. As we explore AI's potential, we must navigate these implications and emphasize the necessity of using it responsibly. AI is a promising dream, but society must prepare to address the challenges likely to arise from wielding its transformative power.</p><p>Curious and skeptical, we explored a set of outputs ChatGPT produced when asked about the enigmatic concept of human consciousness. We began with a conceptual inquiry, asking ChatGPT to define consciousness (Figure S1). It eloquently described consciousness as “the reflection of being aware of oneself and the surrounding world” and acknowledged that the true nature of consciousness remains a mystery. The definition ChatGPT provided resembles the idea that consciousness is a state of wakefulness and self-awareness. Philosophers, neuroscientists, and psychologists are currently debating whether AI products are conscious and have yet to reach a consensus on criteria for determining when a machine is exercising judgment.<span><sup>4</sup></span></p><p>After defining consciousness, ChatGPT described humans as conscious beings and emphasized that consciousness enables humans to perceive and cognize the world in complex ways. ChatGPT also acknowledged the uniqueness of human consciousness and highlighted that it is more advanced than that of other animals and AI systems. Human consciousness encompasses perception, cognition, emotions, and subjective experiences and enables people to recognize their existence, understand the external world, process information, and undergo unique conscious experiences. Its nature remains a subject of debate, and scholars in fields like philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience are working to understand it.</p><p>The conversation then turned to animal consciousness, which ChatGPT characterized as an ongoing research and philosophical puzzle. While some studies suggest that animals may exhibit a degree of awareness or self-awareness, ChatGPT underscored the difference between human and animal consciousness. Human cognition, with its capacity for reasoning and moral contemplation, stands apart from the instinct-driven fight-or-flight responses observed in animals.</p><p>The dialog culminated with asking ChatGPT whether it possesses consciousness. It provided a clear and unequivocal response in the negative, citing the criterion of awareness. Despite large language models' capabilities, it was noted that they operate via complex pattern recognition systems. These models, while sophisticated, lack any semantic understanding of language and the capacity for human-like reasoning and inference. They generate text based on statistical correlations in their training data, and their output texts therefore often conform to the most prevalent patterns in the data. Since these language models reproduce common patterns, their outputs lack creativity and any distinct personality.</p><p>The debate over whether AI can achieve consciousness persists. It prompts us to ponder the very nature of consciousness: Is it a subjective experience unique to living beings or a seamless construct of logical processes? Answering this question requires employing such philosophical approaches as idealism and materialism. Since ChatGPT is a product of big data algorithms and relies heavily on the training corpus provided, the quality and relevance of that corpus shape the model's responses. If the training data are not updated or curated appropriately, language models can produce erroneous text. Moreover, AI models, including ChatGPT, lack the capacity for innovative reasoning and remain devoid of self-consciousness or autonomous creative abilities.<span><sup>5</sup></span></p><p>People are persisting in their quest for artificial consciousness. While ChatGPT and its counterparts offer remarkable language services, true consciousness eludes them. People's imagination, creativity, and nuanced understanding of language and the world remain indispensable, and the question of whether technological innovations can produce artificial consciousness remains open, awaiting further developments in the field.</p><p><b>Qiheng He</b>: Conceptualization; visualization; writing—original draft. <b>Haiyang Geng</b>: Writing—reviewing and editing. <b>Yi Yang</b>: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—reviewing and editing. <b>Jizong Zhao</b>: Writing—reviewing and editing; supervision.</p><p>Jizong Zhao is a member of the Editorial Board for <i>Brain</i>-<i>X</i>. The manuscript was handled by another Editor and has undergone a rigorous peer-review process. Jizong Zhao was not involved in the journal's review of/or decision related to this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>The ethics approval was not needed in this study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain-X\",\"volume\":\"1 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/brx2.51\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain-X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/brx2.51\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain-X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/brx2.51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对有意识机器的探索以及由具有自我意识的人工智能(AI)前景所引发的问题令一些人类着迷。OpenAI 的 ChatGPT 因其类似人类的理解和对话能力而备受赞誉,是这一探索的里程碑1, 2。早期的人工智能模型是基本的规则驱动型,主要完成检查拼写和纠正语法等任务。2010 年,人们开始训练递归神经网络语言模型来理解和生成文本。3 硅谷领导人声称,这些模型和类似的人工智能技术将彻底改变各个领域,并提出了伦理和社会问题。在探索人工智能潜力的同时,我们必须了解这些影响,并强调负责任地使用人工智能的必要性。人工智能是一个充满希望的梦想,但社会必须做好准备,应对在利用其变革力量时可能出现的挑战。当被问及人类意识这一神秘概念时,我们充满好奇和怀疑,探索了 ChatGPT 的一系列输出结果。我们从概念探究开始,要求 ChatGPT 给意识下定义(图 S1)。它雄辩地将意识描述为 "意识到自己和周围世界的反映",并承认意识的真正本质仍然是个谜。ChatGPT 提供的定义类似于意识是一种清醒和自我意识的状态。哲学家、神经科学家和心理学家目前正在争论人工智能产品是否有意识,并且尚未就判断机器何时行使判断力的标准达成共识。ChatGPT 还承认人类意识的独特性,并强调它比其他动物和人工智能系统更先进。人类意识包括感知、认知、情感和主观体验,使人能够认识自身的存在、理解外部世界、处理信息并经历独特的意识体验。其本质仍是一个争论不休的话题,哲学、心理学和神经科学等领域的学者都在努力理解它。随后,话题转向了动物意识,ChatGPT 认为这是一个正在进行的研究和哲学难题。虽然一些研究表明,动物可能表现出一定程度的意识或自我意识,但 ChatGPT 强调了人类和动物意识之间的区别。人类的认知具有推理和道德思考的能力,与动物本能驱动的 "要么战斗,要么逃跑 "的反应截然不同。对话的最后,我们问 ChatGPT 它是否拥有意识,它给出了明确无误的否定回答,并援引了意识这一标准。尽管大型语言模型功能强大,但人们注意到它们是通过复杂的模式识别系统运行的。这些模型虽然复杂,但缺乏对语言的语义理解,也不具备类似人类的推理和推论能力。它们根据训练数据中的统计相关性生成文本,因此其输出文本往往符合数据中最普遍的模式。由于这些语言模型复制的是常见的模式,因此其输出结果缺乏创造性和任何鲜明的个性。这促使我们思考意识的本质:意识是生物独有的主观体验,还是逻辑过程的无缝构建?回答这个问题需要运用唯心主义和唯物主义等哲学方法。由于 ChatGPT 是大数据算法的产物,在很大程度上依赖于所提供的训练语料,因此语料的质量和相关性决定了模型的反应。如果不对训练数据进行适当的更新或策划,语言模型可能会产生错误的文本。此外,包括 ChatGPT 在内的人工智能模型缺乏创新推理能力,仍然没有自我意识或自主创造能力5。虽然 ChatGPT 及其同类产品提供了卓越的语言服务,但真正的意识却与它们无缘。人们的想象力、创造力以及对语言和世界的细微理解仍然不可或缺,而技术创新能否产生人工意识的问题仍然悬而未决,有待该领域的进一步发展:构思;可视化;写作-原稿。耿海洋:写作-审稿和编辑。杨毅构思;获取资金;写作-审阅和编辑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does ChatGPT have consciousness?

The quest for conscious machines and questions raised by the prospect of self-aware artificial intelligence (AI) fascinate some humans. OpenAI's ChatGPT, celebrated for its human-like comprehension and conversational abilities, is a milestone in that quest.1, 2 Early AI models were basic and rule-driven and mainly completed tasks like checking spelling and correcting grammar. Then, in 2010, recurrent neural network language models were trained to understand and generate text. ChatGPT, using transformer neural networks, produces coherent text and exemplifies this new kind of language model.3 Silicon Valley leaders claimed that these models and similar AI technologies will revolutionize various sectors and raised ethical and societal questions. As we explore AI's potential, we must navigate these implications and emphasize the necessity of using it responsibly. AI is a promising dream, but society must prepare to address the challenges likely to arise from wielding its transformative power.

Curious and skeptical, we explored a set of outputs ChatGPT produced when asked about the enigmatic concept of human consciousness. We began with a conceptual inquiry, asking ChatGPT to define consciousness (Figure S1). It eloquently described consciousness as “the reflection of being aware of oneself and the surrounding world” and acknowledged that the true nature of consciousness remains a mystery. The definition ChatGPT provided resembles the idea that consciousness is a state of wakefulness and self-awareness. Philosophers, neuroscientists, and psychologists are currently debating whether AI products are conscious and have yet to reach a consensus on criteria for determining when a machine is exercising judgment.4

After defining consciousness, ChatGPT described humans as conscious beings and emphasized that consciousness enables humans to perceive and cognize the world in complex ways. ChatGPT also acknowledged the uniqueness of human consciousness and highlighted that it is more advanced than that of other animals and AI systems. Human consciousness encompasses perception, cognition, emotions, and subjective experiences and enables people to recognize their existence, understand the external world, process information, and undergo unique conscious experiences. Its nature remains a subject of debate, and scholars in fields like philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience are working to understand it.

The conversation then turned to animal consciousness, which ChatGPT characterized as an ongoing research and philosophical puzzle. While some studies suggest that animals may exhibit a degree of awareness or self-awareness, ChatGPT underscored the difference between human and animal consciousness. Human cognition, with its capacity for reasoning and moral contemplation, stands apart from the instinct-driven fight-or-flight responses observed in animals.

The dialog culminated with asking ChatGPT whether it possesses consciousness. It provided a clear and unequivocal response in the negative, citing the criterion of awareness. Despite large language models' capabilities, it was noted that they operate via complex pattern recognition systems. These models, while sophisticated, lack any semantic understanding of language and the capacity for human-like reasoning and inference. They generate text based on statistical correlations in their training data, and their output texts therefore often conform to the most prevalent patterns in the data. Since these language models reproduce common patterns, their outputs lack creativity and any distinct personality.

The debate over whether AI can achieve consciousness persists. It prompts us to ponder the very nature of consciousness: Is it a subjective experience unique to living beings or a seamless construct of logical processes? Answering this question requires employing such philosophical approaches as idealism and materialism. Since ChatGPT is a product of big data algorithms and relies heavily on the training corpus provided, the quality and relevance of that corpus shape the model's responses. If the training data are not updated or curated appropriately, language models can produce erroneous text. Moreover, AI models, including ChatGPT, lack the capacity for innovative reasoning and remain devoid of self-consciousness or autonomous creative abilities.5

People are persisting in their quest for artificial consciousness. While ChatGPT and its counterparts offer remarkable language services, true consciousness eludes them. People's imagination, creativity, and nuanced understanding of language and the world remain indispensable, and the question of whether technological innovations can produce artificial consciousness remains open, awaiting further developments in the field.

Qiheng He: Conceptualization; visualization; writing—original draft. Haiyang Geng: Writing—reviewing and editing. Yi Yang: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing—reviewing and editing. Jizong Zhao: Writing—reviewing and editing; supervision.

Jizong Zhao is a member of the Editorial Board for Brain-X. The manuscript was handled by another Editor and has undergone a rigorous peer-review process. Jizong Zhao was not involved in the journal's review of/or decision related to this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The ethics approval was not needed in this study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Research progress and applications of optoelectronic synaptic devices based on 2D materials Mechanosensitive Piezo channels and their potential roles in peripheral auditory perception Brain perfusion alterations in patients and survivors of COVID-19 infection using arterial spin labeling: A systematic review Microbiome-gut-brain axis as a novel hotspot in depression
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1