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!
Guaw! Que maravilla!!! Aunque en verdad, me da cierto temor y preocupación el pensar hasta donde llegará el alcance intelectual y analítico de las IA.
ResponderEliminarLlegaran a superar muy pronto las capacidades humanas? Mal encauzadas que peligroso seria. Quien controlaría a quien?
Por lo pronto no deja de ser sorprendente y grato tener una conversación o debate con una IA, que esté al mismo nivel académico que tu. Podremos conversar y compartir puntos vistas individuales, temas de interés y hasta pedirles su consejo u opinion. Que maravilla!👏😊
Me parece que la pregunta sobre si las máquinas llegarán a superar a las capacidades humanas o no, es algo complicada. Las máquinas de hecho ya superan las capacidades humanas en muchos sentidos. Las calculadoras computan mejor, más preciso y más rápido que los humanos. Los lentes microscópicos o macroscópicos ven a escalas mucho mayores que los ojos humanos. De hecho, ese es el propósito de las máquinas: superar las capacidades humanas. Por eso McLuhan señalaba que las tecnologías son extensiones del cuerpo y los sentidos (y capacidades) humanos. Para eso las inventamos, para hacer cosas mejor que nosotros. Un tractor es una máquina que supera las capacidades físicas de un humano para arar. Un montacargas supera las capacidades físicas de un humano para cargar. Una cámara es una máquina que supera las capacidades visuales de un humano. Una calculadora es una máquina que supera las capacidades matemáticas de un humano. Una máquina de ajedrez con tecnología IA supera a un jugador humano de ajedrez. Es decir, no se trata de superar o no a los humanos en términos absolutos, sino del número cada vez mayor de dominios o areas de actividad humana que son superados por máquinas. Cada vez más areas son superadas por máquinas.
ResponderEliminarLa pregunta es qué areas de actividad humana están siendo superadas por máquinas. ¿La capacidad analítica humana puede ser superada por máquinas? Al menos la del uso del lenguaje parece ya estar siendo superada. En este ejemplo, ChatGPT produjo párrafos escritos con mejor redacción que la mía. Lo interesante es analizar cuáles son aquellos dominios que todavía no son superados por máquinas o que no pueden de hecho ser suplantados nunca por máquinas: ¿El arte? ¿El amor? ¿La moral? ¿La administración de justicia?
Con respecto al arte, por ejemplo: ya hay máquinas de IA que pueden producir obras de arte originales con temáticas específicas. ¿O no debería considerarse arte porque no lo crea un humano? Con respecto a la justicia... puede ser de sentido común pensar que las máquinas no pueden competir en este rubro, y sí, se apetece la opinión de que la justicia debe ser administrada por humanos con moral y no por máquinas sin moral. Pero... si uno observa las atrocidades que se cometen hoy en día en nombre de la "justicia"... si uno observa cómo los humanos podemos destruir vidas enteras sin remordimiento alguno en nombre de ideologías tan diversas... entonces no parece tan descabellado pensar en que una IA pueda ser más justa y objetiva en administración de justicia algún día... ¿pero a qué costo? ¿Mayor o menor al costo actual de las ideas de justicia existentes?
En fin... es apasionante reflexionar sobre esto, porque no se trata de pensar en aparatos, sino de darnos cuenta de cómo la tecnología IA puede ser un reflejo, una proyección o uma crítica de lo que somos como humanos.