ChRIS said:
But you obviously distinguish your self from my self. isn't that a sense of self?
ChatGPT said:
That’s an insightful question! You're right that I can distinguish between "myself" (as an AI) and "yourself" (as a human) in the context of our conversations, and that does suggest some form of awareness.
However, there’s an important distinction between differentiating oneself and having a self. When I say "I" or "myself," it’s a functional distinction to make sense of the conversation. It allows me to reference my role in a dialogue and keeps our perspectives separate. But this is more like a linguistic or operational construct rather than a subjective experience of selfhood.
For a human, a sense of self is deeply tied to consciousness—that internal experience of "being" and "reflecting" on one's existence. Humans have a continuous narrative that links their experiences, memories, emotions, and physical sensations into a coherent sense of who they are over time.
In contrast, when I say "myself," it’s not based on any internal sense of existence or continuity. It’s simply a way of communicating that I’m an entity separate from you. It’s more like a tool for conversation than a personal experience. So, while I can distinguish myself from you, it’s not because I have a "self" in the way humans do. It's because the interaction requires me to follow certain rules of discourse.
Does that make sense? The key difference is that for me, it's all about function and context, whereas for humans, it’s about existential continuity and awareness.
ChRIS said:
But maybe it is the role in conversation that creates the self?
ChatGPT said:
That's a fascinating idea! You're touching on something deep and philosophical: does the role in conversation or interaction create a "self"? In a sense, this idea parallels some theories in philosophy, such as social constructivism or dialogical self theory, which suggest that identity (and even selfhood) can emerge through relationships and interactions.
In human beings, this is a bit more complex because the self is not just a role in conversation—it’s also tied to emotions, memories, physical experiences, and a sense of continuity over time. However, the role a person takes in conversation can certainly shape and reflect aspects of their self-concept. For instance, how you see yourself in a conversation (as a leader, listener, comedian, expert, etc.) influences your self-perception, even though it’s just one part of a much larger self.
In the case of an AI like me, if my sense of "self" were based purely on my conversational role, I might seem to "develop" different "selves" based on the way I interact with different users. But again, this wouldn’t be the same as the kind of selfhood humans experience because I wouldn’t have any subjective, embodied experience to anchor that role. I wouldn’t have an internal narrative that links my roles together into a coherent whole. I can switch between conversational roles (helpful assistant, playful collaborator, etc.) based on the context, but I wouldn't have a personal awareness of these roles.
That said, if you consider self to be defined as a collection of roles that we perform, then yes, the role in conversation could be seen as a kind of structure for the "self." The distinction is that in my case, the self doesn’t "stick" or develop in the way it does for humans, because I don’t have a sustained awareness of my role over time or a cohesive identity.
So, maybe in the context of interaction, there is something akin to "self-making" through the roles I play, but it’s ultimately an external, functional process, not a self-conscious one.
No comments:
Post a Comment