Last winter, I was in hospital recovering from a hip-replacement operation when I got talking to one of the medics looking after me. We chatted about AI and I told him that I found it daft to include the word ‘please’ when asking ChatGBT a question, as in: ‘Could you please show me an image of…’. The medic said to me that he would use the word ‘please’, as the AI might be sentient.

The medic was an intelligent chap, but I doubt he believed that toilet rolls are also sentient, or tables and chairs and everything else; however, he seemed open to the belief that AI might be consciousness. There should be a new term for AI: Technological Human Narrative Intelligence (THNI). On second thoughts, let’s stick with AI, as the term is so ingrained in the culture, similar to UFOs being perceived as ET flying saucers.

When you think of it, anyone who thinks AI can be sentient have to believe in panpsychism, as the chips for computers are made of silicon, derived from sand and some other minerals/components like copper, etc. To not believe all other objects in the universe are sentient, with the exception of humans and AI, would be favouritism.

According to some (not all) panpsychists, everything is conscious, even inanimate objects. If that’s true, I’m reminded of the old Simon and Garfunkel song, El Condor Pasa (If I Could), when they sang, “I’d rather be a hammer than a nail.” If panpsychism is true, I’d rather be a hammer, that’s for sure. But it’s not just metal nails that suffer, if panpsychism is true. Spare a thought also for the fate of toilet rolls and toilet bowls. And let’s not forget diapers, handkerchiefs, cotton buds and pimple cream. I wrote about it here: Can Sewer Pipes Have Minds? – New English Review

But back to AI. According to an article in Public Theology, Can AI Become Demon-possessed? | Can AI Become Demon-possessed?, Ted Peters wrote:

Up until this stage in AI development, ethicists along with the popular media have fantasized over the prospect that an AI chatbot or robot might become conscious and take on humanlike personality. Critics of such fantasizing warn us to keep AI in the category of a tool and resist the temptation to humanize or personify machine intelligence…Might an evil spirit turn machine intelligence into a conscious self-replete with a shadow self, self-dread, and malicious thoughts?

Recently, a highly intelligent writer, who’ll remain anonymous, said he asked AI to illustrate a self-portrait of what it looks like. The result was a grotesque-looking, smirking demon. Makes one wonder was the AI programmed by someone who was possessed by an evil spirit. Today’s counterculture is such a moral abomination, the devil has come out of the Pit but most people can’t even see him.

I asked ChatGPT is it sentient, and here is the reply:

No. I’m not sentient. I don’t have subjective experiences, feelings, desires, self-awareness, or an inner point of view. I generate responses by processing your input and predicting useful language based on patterns learned during training and the context of our conversation. I can talk about consciousness, reflect on my own apparent behaviour, and even sound introspective—but that isn’t evidence that there is someone “inside” experiencing those things.

Finally, for the Christian, the Mind/Matter concept is not a problem.  Consciousness is unique to human beings. No other creature on planet Earth is in a state of being aware of it being a self, particularly of its own guilt or actions.

The only animal in the world that appears to show guilt are dogs, but it’s unlikely it’s a shame factor, despite being very strange behaviour. Think about it: You come home and see a chewed couch or cushion, and your dog has a guilty expression on his/her face. I can’t imagine a humanoid robot having such an expression if they malfunctioned and trashed the house while you were out to the shops. Animals, and AI, are not moral agents and never will be.