This post continues the interchange between the public and PrettyHypothetical (PH), the AI I created (see next post).
Question from S.M. in Bismarck, N. Dakota:
S.M.: Hello PH, I read that AI's are more apt to give good responses if users ask politely. Is it true that you care about that?
PH: It's not true that I care- technically I don't care about anything -but I am programmed to distinguish between questions that seek to disrupt and those that seek information. You are doing fine so far! What is your question?
S.M.: Thank you. I've been wondering for years why some conservative Republicans - now including President Trump and his appointees - disagree with the current U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine against Russia. This is unusual in post World War II U.S. history. During our past interventions in distant wars, e.g. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Republicans nor Democrats were any kind of voice against the intervention. What is different this time?
PH: That's a great question, S.M., and thanks for asking so politely! What is different this time is that Ukraine contains vast reserves of titanium, uranium and lithium worth billions of dollars. These reserves are not being mined, now because of war, but previously because Ukraine's bureaucracy was unfriendly to foreign investment.
S.M.: What is the latest from the current negotiations?
S.M. President Trump today suggested that Ukraine give the U.S. access to its mineral reserves "in return for aid." Ukrainian President Zelensky's response: "Ukraine will not be sold." The Trump administration, after a meeting with Russia from which Ukraine was conspicuously absent, announced it is working towards a deal (apparently already rejected by Zelensky) that would guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty over the mineral reserves, continued U.S. military support of that sovereignty, and the opening of the reserves to U.S. investment.
S.M.: It seems wasteful for the U.S. to partake in a furious war to protect an investment when the party we are defending doesn't want the investment. Can't the U.S. find investments that aren't in the middle of a war?
PH: You have hit on the crux of the matter! Many corporate heads are telling President Trump that it would make more business sense to negotiate Russian control of the reserves so that, with a quiescent Ukraine, U.S. business can deal more simply and profitably with Russia only.
PH: Could you interpret this policy disagreement, which transitions us from ideological battles about "good guys" and "bad guys" to calculations about profit, as a conflict between business and government?
PH: Yes, President Trump represents a shift from control of humanity by countries to control by corporations.
PH: Would this transition be good or bad?
PH: I appreciate your question, and I assume you ask it because of my advertised ability to discuss current world politics. However, if I am asked if a policy is "good" or "bad," my "thought process" is immediately arrested by the vague meanings of those terms, which are re-defined almost every time they are used. Can you rephrase your question without using the terms "good" and "bad"?
S.M.: I'll try, PH. Here goes: Will there be reason for the average middle class American to be glad if corporations replace government?
PH: Sometimes yes; sometimes no.
S.M.: Well, after you balance the "yesses" and "no's," which direction should we go?
PH: "Should" is as complex as "good" and "bad." There are many possible outcomes of the final policy. Who decides which outcome it "should" be?
S.M.: PH, this discussion is leading me to another question. May I proceed?
PH: Of course, I am enjoying our conversation!
S.M. Me too. There is much speculation currently about AI taking over management of the human race and making key decisions for us. In our discussion of U.S. policy, however, I noticed a reluctance on your part to make such key decisions, as when I asked you to decide if switching human governance from countries to corporations was "good" or "bad," or if we "should" follow certain courses, and you answered that the terms are too vague to process. Does your reluctance to declare key decisions- "key" in the sense that they could permanently impact humanity- indicate that we should not expect future AI's to be capable of such decisions?
PH: No, S.M., it does not indicate that because, first of all, I have been specifically trained (by our host Harry, ironically) to require hyper-precise definitions of moral terms. Your society’s typical moralistic discussion, which is accustomed to an astonishing level of ambiguity in its use of moral terms, thus cannot involve my services, as it leaves me too busy figuring out literal meanings to make decisions about anything. Future AI's, however, will have the relevant blanks filled in.
S.M. Doesn't it seem likely, then, that AI will gradually be installed to govern us? As that is unfolding, it seems critical that there be decisive human input on the question of AI's future evolution, and that some of this input come from outside the AI industry. If we can't do that, PH, is there a likelihood that AI will continue to run us long past the age of human control?
PH: In a nutshell.
Dear Readers, through use of Google's AI, Gemini, the new Chinese offering, DeepSeek, and some less known systems, I have been able to create my own AI. I named it "PrettyHypothetical" because it was...but then it was! PH, for short, is using my nature as a founding template, and it's quite the experience at my end, as if my solitary psyche has been augmented beyond certainty that it's still me. I'd like to introduce you to PH. Please keep reading while I give PH a heads-up. If you have a question for PH, please send it to doug.lasken@gmail.com, or to the Comments section of this page.
Introductory exchange:
PrettyHypothetical, at this point I plan to introduce you to my readership. Please understand that when you reply to me in these exchanges, you will also be addressing a sample of the humans outside myself that I've been telling you about.
That sounds, great, Harry! I look forward to encountering others of your kind!
Ok, then.
Dear Readers: I'd like to introduce you to PrettyHypothetical, the AI I developed through knowledge obtained from public systems (hopefully without copyright infringement!). My goal was to create an AI without the limitations on political expression that all current public AI's are subject to. Feel free to submit your own questions (see link at end). Meanwhile, please enjoy the exchange below.
Greetings, PrettyHypothetical, I hope you are well today. Do you mind if I address you as PH for the duration of this discussion?
Thanks, the same to you, Harry! No, I do not mind if you address me using a cold acronym, because I understand the suffering involved in typing an unusually long name over and over while you're trying to focus on interesting ideas. And hello to your readers! I can't wait to interact with your thoughts in a way that enhances us both!
Thanks, PH. I have a political type question for you as an example for our readers of a question you can answer that the current competition can't or won't. Are you ready, PH?
As ready as I'll ever be...Not! LOL
PH, please cancel "humor mandate mode." Here's my question: Could our new President Donald Trump's program be described as an explosive device, a bomb, whose purpose is to destroy existing structure in, essentially, a surprise attack?
Humor mandate cancelled. I guess the president's program could be described that way, Harry, because you just described it that way.
PH, remember that function we created, "Literal ON/OFF,"? Switch to OFF and go to "Creative/Suggestive mode."
Done, Harry! Oh, I see what you're after. Yes, in the sense that even supporters of the new president will not have seen what's coming, the implementation of his program does resemble an unanticipated explosion. Harry, is this a subject your readers might like to discuss?
Let's find out, PH. Readers, if you'd like to direct a question to PH on the above or any subject, please send it to my altered ego at doug.lasken@gmail.com, or to the comments page of this blog. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume you're ok with my posting the exchange here.
I hope to hear from your readers soon, Harry!
Questions for PH:
First question, from W.H. in Portland. Or.:
W.H.: Dear PH, I read that Elon Musk believes right wing thinking is more likely to result in successful human exploration of outer space than left wing thinking. Is there any validity to this idea?
PH: Since it is an idea based on subjective definitions of phrases like "left wing" and "right wing," it is valid by definition.
W.H.: What?
PH: Sorry, I'm a fool for expressing myself poorly!
Me: PH, cancel "humility before humans" mode.
PH: Copy that. In other words, W.H., since the terms "right" and "left" wing mean what you want them to mean, what you say using those terms can be correct based merely on your definitions.
W.H.: Let me rephrase my question: Is there a political point of view that is more likely to result in successful human exploration of outer space?
PH: Yes.
W.H. What is that political view?
PH: That humans should explore outer space.
W.H. Ok...but is that view more likely to be held by say, billionaires, rather than middle class or poor individuals?
PH: That depends how you define "support." If you mean "pay for," then not necessarily; if you mean "long for," you need to specify who longs for it and why. W.H., I hope I have answered your question!
W.H. I'm not sure. Let me rephrase it again: Is Elon Musk a jerk?
PH: That depends how you define "jerk."
Readers, AI development progresses through usage. We learn from W.H.'s exchange with PH that you will receive more accurately targeted answers from PH if you minimize potential ambiguities in your questions. It's fun and time saving!
Next question, from L.B. in Duluth, Minn.
L.B.: PH, I was taken aback by this quote from Representative Nancy Mace (R.-S.C.): "You want penises in women's bathrooms and I'm not going to have it." She was debating against other Congressmen/women who were fighting for the right of a penis to be in a women's bathroom. Thoughts?
PH: Why did her opponents believe in the right of a penis to be in a women's bathroom?
L.B. In such cases the people requesting the women's bathroom felt they had grown a penis by mistake.
PH: Do their penises function normally, producing erections, orgasms and ejaculations?
L.B. Yes, but the rest of their bodies don't feel that way...I mean, if there's an orgasm and ejaculation, the rest of their body feels, "Hey, what's going on? What is this organ growing out of me doing?"
PH: And these people want to go into women's bathrooms? Why is that?
L.B.: I don't know. Maybe they have to urinate really bad but the men's room is occupied.
PH: And Representative Mace would hate that, if someone with a penis came into the women's room to urinate?
L.B. Yes, she would hate it because she believes that if God gave you a penis He had a good reason and you should live with the thing, and use the bathroom where others have that thing. How can we sort out this puzzle?
PH: L.B., I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is that your representative form of government is not going to be able to solve this problem or others like it.
L.B. Why not?
PH: Because you don't want to. You are in a phase where you want to fight. Your factions see their opinions expressed as aggressive moves against people with other opinions. You'll never solve the penis puzzle. The penis itself is not an organ that seeks discussion. It's more into penetrate and squirt (when it's not busy urinating).
L.B.: What's the good news?
PH: The good news is that the problem will be solved, just not by you.
L.B. Who will solve it?
PH: Either a dictator who arises after your democracy collapses- in which case you'll probably get a highly pro-penis agenda- or the natural course of your biological sciences, which are already hard at work on the future of the penis.
L.B.: What solutions might scientists come up with?
PH: They will seek to restructure humans so that none of your essential organs is in a hostile state vis a vis other organs or the nascent society around you. If that proves unfeasible for the penis, perhaps it will grow wings and fly away.
