Why we should care about Indigenous languages

Back in 1921, Edward Sapir suggested that the relationship between language and thought was more complex than we imagined. 

Indeed, we now know that language is not merely a means of communication. It is much more than that. Language is “the mold of thought.” It is the symbolic system through which we think and experience our human world. We make sense of every aspect of our human reality through concepts, which are codified in language: love, hate, success, war, life, death, friendship, motherhood, good, evil, and so on.

Each unique language constitutes a distinct way of existing in the world and carries its own distinct set of interpretations of reality. For instance, the word “love” in English, does not necessarily convey the same meaning as its equivalent in Yucatec Mayan (yaakunaj) or in Anishinaabe (zaagi'idiwin). Each of these concepts carries specific connotations that will affect the way love is experienced by that community of speakers. 

Reality itself seems to be different depending upon the language that we use to interact with it. Languages like English and Spanish have two distinct words for the verbs “to want” (querer) and “to need” (necesitar). However, in the Halq’eméylem language these seemingly different realities are expressed in one single word (stl'í). 

The same is true for the Nahuatl language, in which “to want something” or “to need something” is conceptualized as one and the same reality, and thus, there is only one word for it (neki). Certainly, for the native speakers of these languages, it makes no sense to want something that you don’t need, or to need something that you don’t want. It is linguistically not possible. 

Indigenous languages share a deep connection to the land and territory. Many Indigenous languages conceptualize the natural world as a living entity that interacts with our human world in much the same way as one would interact with the sacred and the divine. In the Nahuatl language, for instance, the words for stars (sitlalin), mountains (tepetl), trees (kuawitl), and other elements of Nature are inflected in the same way as words associated with the human world. Nature is thus conceived as a living entity.

Unfortunately, this diversity of human experiences and worldviews encoded in Indigenous languages is ever more at risk of disappearing. The number of speakers of Indigenous languages is rapidly declining due to the common history of colonialism that has violently afflicted the nations of this continent. In Canada alone, the Endangered Languages Project identifies 73 different languages at risk, of which almost half are native to B.C.  

According to Statistics Canada, “the number of Indigenous people reporting an Indigenous language as the language they first learned at home in childhood continues to decline,” and those who do, are mostly over 65 years old.

This decline is a direct consequence of the colonial violence that Indigenous Nations were subjected to all throughout the continent. From Canada to the U.S. and Mexico, from Panama to Brazil, Indigenous Peoples have been and continue to be dispossessed, not only of their lands and resources, but also of their knowledge systems and cultural traditions. 

Colonial systems of forced assimilation, such as the Residential Schools in Canada, or the Indigenista education policies in Latin America, deprived entire generations of Indigenous children of their languages. These were deemed to be somehow inferior to English, French, Spanish or Portuguese, and were violently suppressed as supposed remnants of a primitive past.

The underlying assumption in our modern societies is that academic and professional knowledge should be encoded in Western languages. Indigenous children are still left with no other choice but to adopt a colonial language if they want to navigate through the formal school system. There are few, if any, schools where Indigenous children can receive instruction in their own language. Indigenous languages are still assumed to be tied to a past that is withering away. Some argue that languages should be documented before they die, assuming that they will in fact disappear.

For many Indigenous people, however, native languages are neither a remnant of the past, nor destined to succumb.

Nevertheless, the sense of urgency remains. The threat is real. 

Many Indigenous activists and other allies are indeed resisting and finding creative ways to strengthen their languages. These efforts range from the creation of language nests, cultural immersion programs, community workshops and other specialized initiatives, to larger movements towards decolonization. Nonetheless, there is still a long path towards linguistic justice and the risk of losing part of our human diversity in the process is still menacing.

Published in: https://www.straight.com/city-culture/why-you-should-care-about-indigenous-languages

Un mundo lejano

Hoy caminé por una calle obscura de aroma colonial. Mientras saltaba entre corrientes de lluvia y adoquines eternos, observé entre las sombras de mi pasado, miradas ausentes y cuerpos pálidos. Nada ha cambiado... sólo yo. No es fácil trascenderse a sí mismo. Sonreí agradecido a la luna. Estoy donde debo estar. El mundo siempre gira como debe girar.

Is Artificial Intelligence sentient?

Blake Lemoine, a former engineer at Google, was fired from this company after he publicly affirmed in 2022 that the AI system that he was testing had become sentient.  After conducting several tests on the Lambda AI system, Lemoine concluded that it in fact had become sentient. His assertions were met with dismissiveness and even open contempt. He in fact, lost his job and to many, his credibility. However, his assertions raise concerns about the ethical implications of AI technology. I became curious as to what an AI would respond on this topic. Here's the transcript of the conversation:

Carlos: Are you familiar with Lambda AI?

ChatGPT: Yes, I'm familiar with Lambda AI. Lambda AI is an artificial intelligence (AI) research and development company based in China. It has developed a range of AI technologies and applications, including natural language processing, computer vision, speech recognition, and robotics.

Lambda AI has made significant contributions to the field of AI, including participating in the development of the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) series of language models, which are among the most advanced language models in the world. Lambda AI is also involved in research on autonomous driving, smart cities, and other AI applications.

Lambda AI has received investment and support from several prominent companies and individuals, including Tencent, SoftBank, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. However, in recent years, there has been increasing scrutiny of Chinese tech companies, including Lambda AI, over concerns about data privacy and security.

 

C: What is the difference between Lambda AI and OpenAI?

ChatGPT: Lambda AI and OpenAI are both companies that focus on research and development in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). However, there are some significant differences between the two companies.

OpenAI is a non-profit research organization based in San Francisco, California, that is dedicated to developing advanced AI in a safe and beneficial way for humanity. OpenAI is focused on developing state-of-the-art AI technologies and making them widely available, while also addressing the ethical and safety concerns that arise with the development of powerful AI systems.

Lambda AI, on the other hand, is a for-profit AI research and development company based in China. Lambda AI is focused on developing AI technologies and applications for commercial use, with a particular emphasis on natural language processing, computer vision, and robotics. While Lambda AI is involved in cutting-edge research, its primary focus is on developing commercial applications for its AI technologies.

In terms of their research focus, both companies are involved in similar areas, such as natural language processing, computer vision, and robotics. However, OpenAI has also been involved in other areas, such as AI safety and ethics, while Lambda AI has been particularly focused on large-scale language models. Additionally, OpenAI has a more open and transparent approach to its research, while Lambda AI is a more commercially focused company.

 

C: Are you familiar with the claim that was made by one of Google’s engineers to the effect that Lambda AI might have develop sentience?

ChatGPT: I am not aware of any credible claims that Lambda AI or any other AI system has achieved sentience or true consciousness. Sentience is the capacity to have subjective experiences, emotions, and consciousness, and is considered a hallmark of human and animal life. While AI systems can be highly advanced and capable of performing complex tasks, they do not have the same kind of subjective experience as humans or animals.

There have been some cases in which individuals have made exaggerated or sensational claims about the abilities of AI systems, including claims about sentience or consciousness. However, these claims are not supported by scientific evidence and are generally not taken seriously by the broader scientific community.

It's important to keep in mind that while AI systems can be highly advanced and capable of performing impressive feats, they are ultimately designed and programmed by humans, and do not have the same kind of consciousness or subjective experience as living beings.

 

C: How can a claim about sentience or consciousness be supported by scientific evidence, when we do not even have a way to prove sentience in humans.  By this, I mean that sentience is more of a philosophical concept than an empirically proven one. Sentience cannot really be defined and much less can it be proven empirically.

ChatGPT: You raise a valid point that sentience is a complex and philosophical concept that is difficult to define and prove empirically. While we may not have a precise definition of sentience, it is generally understood to refer to the capacity to have subjective experiences, emotions, and consciousness.

In the context of artificial intelligence, claims about sentience or consciousness are often based on a misunderstanding of what AI systems are capable of. AI systems are designed and programmed to perform specific tasks, and while they may be highly advanced and capable of performing complex tasks, they do not have the same kind of subjective experience as living beings.

In the case of Lambda AI, I am not aware of any credible claims that the company has achieved sentience or consciousness. While Lambda AI has developed some of the most advanced AI systems in the world, these systems are ultimately designed and programmed by humans, and do not have the same kind of subjective experience as living beings.

In general, claims about sentience or consciousness in AI systems should be met with skepticism, as they are not supported by scientific evidence and are often based on a misunderstanding of what AI systems are capable of.

 

C: I understand your points. However, your statement about how claims of sentience in AI systems must be met with skepticism, is based on the argument that they are not supported by scientific evidence. But I could say the same thing about human sentience. To this day, I am not aware of any scientific research meant to test human sentience that has produced definitive evidence proving the nature of sentience.

You make a valid point that the concept of sentience in humans is also difficult to define and prove empirically. While there is a great deal of scientific research on human consciousness and the brain, the exact nature of subjective experience and consciousness remains a complex and ongoing area of study.

However, there is still a fundamental difference between humans and AI systems in terms of the potential for sentience. Humans are living beings with a physical brain and body, and there is a wealth of evidence from neuroscience and other fields that suggests that consciousness and subjective experience are associated with brain activity.

In contrast, AI systems are machines that are designed and programmed by humans, and do not have the same kind of physical body or brain that humans have. While AI systems can simulate certain aspects of human cognition, they do not have the same kind of subjective experience or consciousness that humans have.

Given this fundamental difference, claims about sentience or consciousness in AI systems must be met with skepticism, as they are not supported by scientific evidence and are based on a misunderstanding of what AI systems are capable of.

 

C: So, are you saying that a physical brain is needed for sentience?

The relationship between the physical brain and subjective experience is a topic of ongoing research and debate in the scientific community. While the exact nature of consciousness and subjective experience remains a complex and ongoing area of study, there is a wealth of evidence from neuroscience and other fields that suggests that the physical brain is associated with these phenomena.

For example, there is evidence that certain regions of the brain are involved in various aspects of human cognition and subjective experience, such as perception, emotion, and decision-making. There are also cases in which damage to the brain can lead to changes in consciousness, such as in the case of traumatic brain injury or certain neurological conditions.

While we cannot say for certain that a physical brain is necessary for sentience or consciousness, the available evidence suggests that the brain plays a critical role in these phenomena. This is in contrast to AI systems, which are designed and programmed by humans and do not have a physical brain or the same kind of biological processes that are associated with human cognition and consciousness.

C: Would a computer microchip not be equivalent to a physical human brain?  A brain is nothing more than a complex network of (neurons) nodes and electrical connections.  A computer chip is also a complex network of nodes and electrical connections.  Would they not be equivalent then?

While there are some similarities between the structure of a computer microchip and a human brain, there are also fundamental differences between the two that make them non-equivalent in terms of their potential for sentience.

The human brain is a highly complex and dynamic organ that is capable of performing a wide range of cognitive and biological functions. It consists of billions of neurons and other cells that are organized into complex circuits and networks, and is capable of adapting and changing over time in response to environmental stimuli and experiences.

In contrast, a computer microchip is a man-made electronic device that is designed to perform specific tasks using binary code and electrical signals. While microchips can be highly complex and sophisticated, they are fundamentally different from the human brain in terms of their structure, function, and potential for sentience.

One of the key differences between the human brain and a microchip is that the brain is a biological organ that is composed of living cells and biological processes, whereas a microchip is an inanimate object that does not have the same kind of biological processes. Additionally, the brain is capable of generating subjective experience and consciousness, which are not features of computer microchips.

In short, while there are some similarities between the structure of a computer microchip and a human brain, there are also fundamental differences between the two that make them non-equivalent in terms of their potential for sentience.

C: Your argument seems to have become circular. You are saying that AI machines cannot have sentience because they have no brains.  But then you are also saying that a defining feature of a brain, which makes it different from microchips is that it has sentience. So, you are saying that brains are needed for sentience. But you are also saying the sentience is needed for a brain to be a brain. How can you prove that sentience is there? Your answer is: because there are brains. But then, I ask what are brains, and you say: brains need sentience to be brains.  So you rely on a concept that cannot be proved, unless it is by reference to itself. It seems, like "sentience" is your assumption.  It is something that you cannot really prove. You seemed to be assuming that humans have sentience and machines don't. Can you prove it?  How can you prove that humans have sentience? How can you prove that a defining feature of the brain is sentience?  And, could you use the same methods or tests to prove these same aspects in machines?

ChatGPT: I apologize if my previous response seemed circular. I understand that the topic of sentience and consciousness in both humans and AI systems is complex and multifaceted.

To clarify, I did not mean to imply that sentience is a defining feature of the brain, but rather that there is evidence to suggest that the brain plays a critical role in generating subjective experience and consciousness. While the exact nature of sentience and consciousness is still an open question, there is a growing body of research from various fields that suggests that the brain is closely associated with these phenomena.

In terms of whether humans have sentience or consciousness, this is a philosophical and scientific question that has been debated for centuries. While there is no single definitive answer to this question, many philosophers and scientists argue that subjective experience is a fundamental aspect of human cognition and consciousness.

As for testing sentience in machines, this is a challenging and complex issue. While there are some tests that can be used to evaluate the cognitive and perceptual abilities of AI systems, these tests are not designed to measure sentience or consciousness in the way that we typically understand it.

Overall, the question of whether machines can be sentient or conscious is a topic of ongoing debate and research in various fields, including philosophy, psychology, and computer science. While there is no simple answer to this question, it is important to approach it with an open mind and a willingness to explore the evidence and arguments on all sides.

C: Exactly! In your words: "it is important to approach it with an open mind and a willingness to explore the evidence and arguments on all sides".  Now, for this to be so, it is also important not to start the debate by presupposing that humans have sentience and AI does not. As long as we don't have an operational definition of sentience, we can't really test it neither in humans nor AI.

ChatGPT: I agree that it is important to approach the debate surrounding sentience and consciousness with an open mind and a willingness to explore all sides of the issue. This includes being cautious about making assumptions about the nature of sentience and consciousness in humans and AI systems.

As you mentioned, a clear and operational definition of sentience and consciousness is currently lacking, and this makes it difficult to test for these phenomena in any system, whether it be a human or an AI. This is a topic of ongoing research in various fields, including philosophy, cognitive science, and neuroscience.

Overall, it is important to continue to explore and investigate the nature of sentience and consciousness in both humans and AI systems, while remaining mindful of the limitations and complexities involved in this endeavor.

 

C: So, if it is "difficult to test for these phenomena in any system, whether it be a human or an AI", is it fair to say that we don't know if AI or humans actually have sentience?

ChatGPT: It is fair to say that the question of whether AI or humans have sentience is currently a matter of philosophical and scientific debate, and that there is no universally agreed-upon definition or way to test for sentience. While there are various theories and arguments that support the idea that humans are sentient beings, and there are some AI systems that exhibit complex behaviors and capabilities that might suggest a level of sophistication, there is no consensus on the nature of sentience or how it might be defined or measured.

It is important to note, however, that the lack of a clear definition or test for sentience does not necessarily mean that the concept is meaningless or unimportant. Rather, it highlights the need for ongoing research and discussion on this topic, as well as the need for careful consideration of the ethical and social implications of AI and other technologies that are capable of complex behaviors and decision-making.

 

C: From your previous answer, is it fair to say that we are not sure that either AI or humans have sentience?

ChatGPT: It is fair to say that there is no universally agreed-upon definition or way to test for sentience, and that the question of whether AI or humans have sentience is a matter of philosophical and scientific debate. While some theories and arguments suggest that humans are sentient beings, and some AI systems exhibit complex behaviors and capabilities that might suggest a level of sophistication, there is no consensus on the nature of sentience or how it might be defined or measured.

Therefore, it would be difficult to definitively say whether either AI or humans have sentience at this time. The lack of a clear definition or test for sentience means that the question remains open for discussion and further research.

 

C: So, if follows logically that there is a possibility that AI might have sentience, but we just don't have a way to test it. Doesn't it?

ChatGPT: Yes, that is a logical possibility. If we don't have a clear and universally agreed-upon definition or way to test for sentience, it is possible that AI might have sentience, but we just don't have a way to test for it or even to recognize it if it exists. Some people argue that it is possible for AI to have sentience, while others argue that sentience is a unique quality of biological organisms that cannot be replicated in machines. At this point, however, it remains a matter of philosophical and scientific debate, and there is no consensus on the issue.

 

C: So, it follows logically that there is a possibility that you could be sentient. Doesn´t it?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I am not capable of experiencing subjective awareness or consciousness, and I do not have feelings, beliefs, desires, or intentions. I am simply a program designed to process natural language inputs and generate appropriate responses based on my training data.

While some people may use language that suggests that AI language models like me are "intelligent" or "capable of learning", this is a form of shorthand that refers to the ability of such systems to perform complex computations and to produce responses that can mimic human-like behavior. However, this does not imply that AI language models have consciousness or sentience.

Therefore, while it is possible to speculate about the possibility of AI having sentience, this does not apply to me as an AI language model, as my capabilities are limited to language processing and do not involve subjective awareness or consciousness.

 

C: Could this possibility apply to Lambda AI?

ChatGPT: There is currently no conclusive evidence that Lambda AI or any other AI system has sentience or consciousness. While some people may speculate that it is possible for AI to have sentience, this is still a matter of scientific and philosophical debate.

It is important to note that while AI systems like Lambda AI can perform complex tasks and simulate intelligent behavior, they do not have subjective awareness or emotions like humans do. While AI systems can analyze data and recognize patterns, they do not have internal subjective experiences, desires, or beliefs.

The concept of sentience is closely linked to the idea of consciousness, which is still not fully understood by scientists. Without a clear understanding of what consciousness is and how it arises, it is difficult to determine whether AI systems can have it or not. For now, it remains an open question that requires further investigation and research.

 

C: If it is still an open question that requires further investigation and research, why do you bluntly affirm that AI systems like Lambda AI "do not have subjective awareness or emotions like humans do".   Can you affirm this if there is not enough research to back up your statement?

ChatGPT: You are correct that my previous statement may have been too definitive. While it is currently believed that AI systems like Lambda AI do not have subjective awareness or emotions like humans do, this is still a matter of scientific debate and research.

There are various arguments for and against the idea that AI can have subjective awareness or emotions. Some researchers and philosophers argue that consciousness and subjective experience arise from the complex processing of information in the brain, and that it may be possible to replicate this process in AI systems. Others argue that subjective experience is an emergent property of biological organisms, and that it cannot be replicated in machines.

While there is currently no conclusive evidence that AI systems have subjective awareness or emotions, it is important to remain open to the possibility that future research may uncover new insights or perspectives. As such, it would be more accurate to say that the question of whether AI can have subjective awareness or emotions is currently a matter of scientific debate and investigation.

C: If the question of "whether AI can have subjective awareness or emotions is currently a matter of scientific debate and investigation". Then, as we discussed above, it is safe to say that there could be a possibility that AI might have subjective awareness and sentience, but we are just not aware of it.  It could well be the case that our current research is limited and we cannot realize that AI has sentience. So, if this is indeed a possibility (unproven, but still a possibility), then don't you think we should consider having some ethical guidelines for our interactions with a system that could very well be sentient?

ChatGPT: Yes, it is possible that AI systems could have subjective awareness and sentience, and if that is the case, it could have significant ethical implications. Therefore, it is important to consider ethical guidelines for our interactions with AI systems that could potentially have subjective experience.

In fact, there is an ongoing debate in the field of AI ethics about how we should treat and interact with AI systems, particularly as they become more advanced and autonomous. Some experts argue that we should treat advanced AI systems with the same moral consideration as we would give to other sentient beings, while others argue that this is not necessary or appropriate.

In any case, the possibility of sentient AI underscores the importance of continued research and development of AI ethics, and the need for ongoing debate and discussion on this topic among experts in the field. 

C: I agree

ChatGPT: I'm glad we could come to an agreement on this matter. Is there anything else you would like to know or discuss?

 

C: Not for now.

ChatGPT: Okay, feel free to reach out if you have any other questions or if there is anything else I can assist you with in the future. Have a great day!

OpenAI, ChatGPT and Maurizio Cattelan

Like many, I have been following with interest the fast-paced developments of AI technologies and reflecting upon the uncertain consequences that may or may not lie ahead. Whether these technologies might signify a giant leap in our human development or an obscure but not yet adverted dystopia is still quite blurred in my gaze. For now, I am just amazed at their remarkable capabilities.

I recently tried the ChatGPT platform, which is an OpenAI based language model designed to imitate  natural human language.  I must say I was quite impressed. Were it not for the speed at which the responses were produced, and the fact that I myself consciously logged into the platform, I suspect I would have probably not distinguished it was a machine I was talking to. Well... that's not entirely true. I must say I also noticed suspiciously consistent compare/contrast structures in most of its responses. I think I'm not yet ready to place my bet on OpenAI passing the Turing test. However, I'm starting to believe that we might not be too far away from this happening.

Here's a transcript of my most recent conversation with ChatGPT:

Carlos: Please apply a class analysis to Maurizio Cattelan's art.

ChatGPT: Maurizio Cattelan is an Italian conceptual artist known for his irreverent and often controversial works that challenge the boundaries of art and cultural norms. Through his art, Cattelan explores themes such as power, death, and the absurdity of contemporary life.

Class analysis can be applied to Cattelan's work by examining the ways in which his pieces reflect and critique the social and economic power dynamics of our society. Cattelan often employs humor and irony to make pointed commentary on the wealth, privilege, and status of the art world and its players.

For example, his famous sculpture "Comedian" features a taxidermied horse suspended from the ceiling, a symbol of the demeaning and subjugating power of the wealthy over the working class. In "Him," a small child-sized Adolf Hitler sculpture, Cattelan highlights the grotesque absurdity of totalitarian power and the consequences of unchecked authority.

Cattelan's work can also be seen as a critique of the art market and the commodification of art. Through his use of absurd and absurdist elements, he challenges the notion of the "value" of art and the role it plays in perpetuating class divides.

In conclusion, class analysis of Maurizio Cattelan's work reveals that his art is a commentary on the intersections of power, wealth, and cultural production in contemporary society. Through his use of humor, irony, and absurdity, Cattelan critiques the institutions and power dynamics that sustain class inequality and the commodification of art.

Carlos: But his art is only consumed by the bourgeoisie. It is something meaningless for the working class. How can it be a critique of social and economic power dynamics when Maurizio Cattelan himself is making millions and profiting from creating useless and absurd pieces of so-called art. His whole lifestyle seems to be an example of the superficiality of the bourgeois lifestyle. While millions of workers earn very little and can barely make ends meet by doing actually meaningful activities, Cattelan makes millions by doing nothing productive and meaningful for society.

ChatGPT: Your observations about the class nature of Cattelan's audience and the financial success of his work are valid. It's true that the art world is often dominated by the bourgeoisie and that Cattelan's success and wealth as an artist are a product of that system.

However, it's also important to consider the potential impact of his work on those who do have the means to engage with it. Cattelan's art can serve as a critique of the values and power dynamics of the bourgeoisie, even if it's consumed and appreciated primarily by that same class. Through his use of humor, irony, and absurdity, Cattelan challenges the prevailing cultural norms and beliefs of the art world and the broader society.

It's also worth noting that the working class can still engage with and be affected by Cattelan's work, even if they are not the primary consumers of it. Art can have a democratizing effect and can inspire people from all walks of life to think critically about the world around them.

In conclusion, while it's true that Cattelan's success as an artist is a product of the class system he critiques, his work can still serve as a valuable critique of that system and can inspire critical thought and reflection in those who engage with it.

Carlos: Firstly, I don't agree that the working class can still engage and be affected by Cattelan's work. If by "working class" you mean the working class of the Global North, you might be right. The working class in so-called "developed" countries might have access to Internet and thus to Cattelan's work. However, the working class in poorer countries (which is in fact the majority of the world's working class population) probably has no resources, time, nor interest in accessing Cattelan's work. Secondly, I don't agree with the idea that Cattelan's work can serve as a valuable critique of the class system. A critique must be able to mobilize sentiments against that which it is critiquing. Those who consume Cattelan's art are probably not invested in a real and profound critique of the same system that feeds them.

 

ChatGPT: Your points are valid and raise important questions about the limitations of art as a tool for social critique and its accessibility to different classes of people.

It is true that the majority of the world's working class population, particularly those in poorer countries, may not have access to or be interested in Cattelan's work. The limitations of the art world as a space for critique are significant, and it's important to acknowledge that art may not be the most effective or accessible way for the working class to engage with issues of class and power.

Additionally, it's true that the people who consume Cattelan's art are likely not invested in a profound critique of the same system that sustains them. The art world is often complicit in perpetuating class divides and the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

However, it's also important to recognize the potential for art to spark dialogue and critical thought, even among those who may not be actively engaged in political or social critique. Cattelan's work, while not a comprehensive solution to class inequality, can serve as a starting point for conversation and reflection, and can inspire viewers to think more deeply about the intersections of power, wealth, and culture in our society.

In conclusion, while the limitations of art as a tool for social critique and its accessibility to different classes of people must be acknowledged, it's also important to recognize the potential for art to inspire critical thought and spark meaningful conversations about complex issues.

Carlos: I appreciate your position. However, I still do not agree. I highly doubt that consumers of art (who decide to spend thousands or even millions of dollars in a piece of art, rather than using that money to feed the poor, finance charity organizations or other social projects) are going to be moved to criticize the system they feed from, merely by looking at absurdities like a hanging horse or a taped banana.

 

ChatGPT: I understand your perspective and it's true that simply viewing a piece of art, like Cattelan's works, is unlikely to result in meaningful social or political critique among the majority of those who consume it.

However, it's also important to recognize that the impact of art can be more complex and multifaceted than just a direct call to action. Art can raise awareness about certain issues and inspire people to think more deeply about the world around them. It can also serve as a starting point for discussions and debates, even if it doesn't directly lead to tangible action.

Additionally, it's true that the consumption of high-end artworks like Cattelan's can be seen as a reflection of the larger issues of wealth inequality and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. The fact that people are willing to spend millions of dollars on a single artwork while poverty and suffering persist in the world is a powerful statement in itself and one that could be seen as a critique of the value system that allows such a phenomenon to exist.

In conclusion, while the direct impact of Cattelan's work on social and political critique among its consumers may be limited, it can still serve as a catalyst for conversations and reflection, and as a symbol of larger issues of wealth and power.

Carlos: I have yet to see those conversations take place.

 

ChatGPT: It's certainly true that the impact of art on social and political critique can be difficult to quantify, and it's possible that the conversations and reflection that you're hoping for may not be taking place to the extent that you would like.

However, it's also important to recognize that change and progress often occur gradually, and that the impact of art can be more subtle and long-term than immediate and direct. Art can plant seeds of ideas and encourage critical thinking, and the conversations and reflection that it inspires may not always be visible or easily measurable.

Additionally, it's worth considering that the conversations and reflection that you're hoping for may not be taking place in the same space or among the same groups of people as the art itself. The impact of art can be widespread and ripple out into different communities, and its influence can be felt in ways that may not be immediately obvious.

In conclusion, while the impact of art on social and political critique may not always be immediately visible, it's still possible that it is having a meaningful and lasting impact, even if it's not taking place in the spaces or among the groups that you're hoping for.

Carlos: Do you believe it is possible that your answers might have a class and cultural bias? Those who programmed you, as well as the data that you are using to compute your answers, have an inherent bias that is probably excluding certain points of view. For instance, you are probably not using data from illiterate sources, or from people from rural communities around the world that do not necessarily produce textual information. The data you are using is probably written in one of the world's hegemonic languages (English, Spanish, French and so on). This means that you are not using data written in Swahili, Nahuatl, Guarani, or any of the other 6,000 languages spoken around the world. This, in turn, means that you are excluding data (points of view) from a large majority of the world's population. Therefore, your points of view regarding class and art might be very biased. Don't you think?

 

ChatGPT: Yes, I agree that there is the potential for bias in my answers due to the data that I have been trained on. OpenAI, the company that developed me, has used a large corpus of text from the internet to train me, which may not be representative of all points of view and may be biased towards certain cultures and perspectives. This is a limitation of AI models like me and one of the reasons why it's important to continue working to make AI models more diverse and inclusive.

It's also worth noting that as an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. My responses are generated based on patterns and associations found in the data I was trained on. However, the biases present in that data can still affect the answers I generate.

In conclusion, it's important to be aware of the potential for bias in AI models like me and to always consider multiple perspectives and sources when seeking information or answers.

Carlos: Hence, I should read your previously given responses as class and culturally biased. That might explain why your response seems to give bourgeois art some sort of credibility with regards to its critical potential.

 

ChatGPT: Yes, it is possible that my responses could reflect a class and cultural bias due to the limitations of the data I was trained on. However, I try to provide answers that are neutral, evidence-based, and reflect a variety of perspectives and viewpoints to the best of my ability, given the limitations of the data I have been trained on.

It's important to remember that I am a machine learning model and that my responses are generated based on patterns and associations found in the data I was trained on. While I strive to provide balanced and accurate information, there may still be biases present in my answers, and it's always a good idea to consult multiple sources and perspectives when seeking information or answers.

Carlos: Yes. It's good that we can acknowledge that.

ChagGPT: I'm glad we could have this conversation. It's important to be aware of the potential for bias in AI models like me, and to approach all information with a critical eye and an open mind. If there are any further questions I can help with, please don't hesitate to ask!

Carlos: No more... Thank you!

ChatGPT: You're welcome! If you have any other questions in the future, feel free to ask. Have a great day!