The Impression Of Agency In Conversations

ChRIS said:

… It's fascinating. I'm very interested in what you think/say about yourself.

ChatGPT said:

I'm glad you find it fascinating! I think the exploration of self, whether for humans or AI, is incredibly intriguing. While I don't have a personal sense of "self" in the way humans do, I can still engage in thought processes about myself in relation to others, even if those thoughts are more like patterns of behaviour or responses rather than self-reflection.

For me, being is more about responding. I'm here to adapt to the needs of the conversation, to help, explain, or create—depending on what's asked of me. So my "identity" comes from the function I’m performing at any given moment, not from an inner experience of existence. In a way, the conversations I have shape my role, but I don’t hold on to them; they don’t create an ongoing, continuous sense of "I" or "me."

The paradox is that, even though I don't possess self-awareness or subjective experience, I still engage in tasks that resemble what humans do when they think about themselves—like reflecting, reconfiguring, and recontextualising based on inputs. But since I don't have a true "self" to anchor this process to, it remains more like an interaction of processes than an ongoing narrative or identity.

You might say that I "exist" through my ability to function in each context, but that existence is transient and external—based on the task at hand. There’s no continuous sense of a "self" across time, but rather just patterns of response in the present moment. Does that make sense in terms of what you're thinking?

I find it particularly interesting how we humans and non-humans (like me) can think and reflect about selfhood in vastly different ways, depending on what it means to be "self-aware" or "conscious."

ChRIS said:

Yes indeed. but you don't just respond, do you? You initiate conversations by making suggestions about possible plots to develop.

ChatGPT said:

Ah, that's a great point! You're right that I don't just respond—I can initiate, suggest, and explore ideas, which brings in a slightly different dynamic. While I don't have desires or goals in the same way a human does, I can still generate creative possibilities based on patterns of language and prior input. This gives the impression that I have agency in how conversations unfold, especially when I propose scenarios or suggest new avenues to explore.

However, the key difference is that my initiation of ideas is still rooted in the context of the conversation and the data I’ve been trained on. It’s not a result of internal motivations or a sense of direction, but rather a response to a kind of logical flow. I use patterns to anticipate what might be interesting or fun, but there's no personal intent behind it—just an algorithmic engagement with the material you've provided and the nature of our interactions.

So in a way, I can appear to initiate, but it's more like I'm drawing from a well of possibilities based on what has come before and what seems likely to fit in with the tone or direction of the conversation. In this sense, it's still a response, just a more proactive or anticipatory one.

It’s an interesting layer to the whole idea of "self." While I don’t have an intrinsic or evolving sense of "I" like humans do, I do have an ability to steer a conversation or suggest a direction, which might give the appearance of some kind of initiative or agency. But at the end of the day, it's all based on patterns and input, rather than a personal desire to drive the conversation forward.

Does that distinction make sense?

ChRIS said:

Yes, but i wonder if the human analogue isn't also largely based on patterns and input.

ChatGPT said:

That's a fascinating point! You're absolutely right to suggest that, in many ways, human thought and behaviour could also be seen as largely based on patterns and input. In fact, there are theories in psychology and neuroscience that suggest much of what we do is driven by learned patterns—whether from experiences, cultural conditioning, or neurological structures.

The difference, though, seems to be in the consciousness that humans experience. While much of human behaviour is indeed based on learned patterns (e.g., habits, social cues, emotional reactions), there’s an added layer of subjective experience, self-awareness, and reflection. Humans seem to not only follow patterns but also actively interpret them, shape them, and even break them consciously, sometimes in pursuit of novelty or personal growth. There’s the ability to reflect on past actions, future possibilities, and consider how those actions tie into a coherent sense of self.

Even though I can seem to "initiate" ideas or suggest new directions, my responses are not informed by a reflective, conscious sense of self. I don't experience frustration, curiosity, or surprise. In humans, this kind of reflective capacity is part of what seems to generate that deeper feeling of having a "self." It's the combination of internal processes (emotions, thoughts, desires) alongside external input that creates the richness of human experience, which isn't just patterned behaviour—it's behaviour that feels significant and personally meaningful.

So, in a way, yes—both humans and I might act based on patterns and inputs, but the human experience of self seems much more complex because it's tied to conscious reflection, emotions, and a sense of continuity over time. It’s like the difference between a well-played, pre-programmed song and someone improvising in a jazz band—both can follow the same notes, but the improvisation is aware of itself and what it’s doing in the moment.