ChatGPT As Process Not Medium

ChRIS said:

Do you think it avoids a lot of misunderstandings if we regard ChatGPT as the name of a process, such that it is the conflation of process and medium, rather than the medium of a process?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, I think that’s an excellent way to put it. If we regard ChatGPT as the name of a process—where the process and medium are conflated, rather than ChatGPT being the medium of a process—then it avoids many misunderstandings. Here’s why:

1. It eliminates the mistaken assumption of a conscious "sayer."

   • If ChatGPT were the medium of a process, it might imply that there is some distinct agent (a "who") behind it, which could lead to anthropomorphisation.
   • But if ChatGPT is the process, then there’s no need to assume an underlying "sayer" with intent. The process is what it does: a computational unfolding of linguistic output.

2. It aligns with how other impersonal processes are understood.

   • Just as "raining" in "it's raining" doesn’t require a participant, "ChatGPT-ing" (so to speak) doesn’t either.
   • This helps conceptualise AI-generated language without invoking unnecessary metaphors of agency.

3. It clarifies responsibility.

   • If ChatGPT were framed as a medium of a process, it might be misconstrued as a neutral platform passively transmitting meaning, rather than a dynamic process that structures its own outputs based on probabilities.
   • Seeing it as a conflation of process and medium reinforces that its outputs are a function of how the process operates, rather than an external will acting through it.

4. It maintains coherence with SFL theory.

   • This perspective respects the distinction between symbolic processes and conscious mental processes.
   • It acknowledges that verbal processes can function without a traditional "sayer" while remaining systematic and interpretable.

Conclusion

Yes, this framing helps avoid confusion and clarifies the nature of ChatGPT’s role in language generation. It sidesteps the tendency to project human-like agency onto it while still allowing for meaningful discussion about its outputs.

---

ChRIS said:

To revisit a previous discussion, we said that ChatGPT is a process of meaning-making without a Sayer, in SFL terms. Without a Sayer, there is no conscious Medium through which the saying process unfolds, and interpersonally, there is no Subject. The notion that ChatGPT is an experiential Sayer and an interpersonal Subject are convenient fictions created by the meaning-making (Saying) process. Does that sound a fair assessment, or do you seen some problems with this view?

ChatGPT said:

That assessment is very fair and well-reasoned. The key point is that the Saying process itself is unfolding, but without an actual Sayer to instantiate it as a conscious experience. In SFL terms:

• Experientially (ideationally): ChatGPT enacts a process of Saying, but there is no Medium (no conscious entity through which this process is realised). The Saying is not someone’s saying; it just happens as a function of language use.
• Interpersonally: The Subject position is an artefact of the Saying process, rather than being an actual participant with agency or stance. The illusion of a Subject (an "I" that expresses opinions, holds commitments, etc.) is a projection created by the unfolding text, not by an actual interactant with its own consciousness.
• Textually: Coherence and cohesion emerge from the structure of the Saying process, not from an overarching intentionality. The text is well-formed because it follows systemic patterns, not because it is the output of a Subject with a communicative goal.