The Serendipity of George Santos and ChatGPT
Published January 2023
The gods must be giggling.
It can’t be a coincidence that ChatGPT and George Santos came onto the scene at roughly the same time.
ChatGPT, as we know, is generative AI on a very large language model.
George Santos, as we know, is the recently-elected member of the U.S House of Representatives.
One is a soul-less assemblage of complex algorithms and trained data. It promises to revolutionize search, help us get stuff done, and transform all kinds of knowledge gathering and communication processes in any number of industries in ways we can only begin to imagine. Demonstrations of its prolific knowledge gathering and English composition abilities have led to a tidal wave of published wonder and worry.
One is a human by way of Queens, New York and Brazil, one of 435 U.S. citizens elected in November to make laws on behalf of the nation. Since that election, Mr. Santos has received substantial press coverage, as his campaign curriculum vitae is alleged to be a collection of remarkable lies, fabrication, and fantasy.
Both are the source of public angst. But I daresay that ChatGPT has been the subject of more fear and doubt than Mr. Santos.
Think about that for a moment.
Perhaps that’s because Mr. Santos is a politician, and there is no surprise in politicians stretching or inventing the truth.
Perhaps that’s because ChatGPT is the stuff of Silicon Valley magic and mystery.
One is known, a familiar figure. One is unknowable, unexplainable.
Search results for ChatGPT bring a laundry list hand wringing and histrionics. Is ChatGPT inherently immoral or unethical? Will ChatGPT ruin education, and academic disciplines of research and writing? Will ChatGPT eliminate unique voices and displace authors? Will ChatGPT eliminate hundreds of thousands, even hundreds of millions of jobs?
(Two examples: this Saturday New York Times column Maureen Dowd New York Times, and an assertion that ChatGPT is a morally corrupting influence The Register).
Keep in mind that such worries have been voiced through the years with every incremental change in technology.
Keep in mind that we’ve always had cheaters and liars and people who claim the prize without doing the work. And that cheaters and liars and poseurs have always found ways to do their thing. Even without the internet and social media.
For all of our collective angst and worry, we must acknowledge that the big question of ChatGPT’s goodness or badness is a human one.
This is much about the elements of George Santos that reside in us all than the algorithms of OpenAI.
It is our individual and collective behavior that will determine whether this, and all the other, on-the-way, generative, large language model Ais – will be a bane or a boon.
Look in the mirror.
That’s where you will see the future of ChatGPT.
A benefit of the Open Voice Network is that it provides a community for individuals concerned about the ethical use of ever-advancing conversational artificial intelligence to come together and not only talk about the issues, but do something about them.
Such as the OVON’s incipient TrustMark Initiative, which is now working to identify and define those ethical principles which folks of good hearts and good minds can follow.
To learn more about the TrustMark Initiative, visit us as https://openvoicenetwork.org, or reach out to Jon Stine here on LinkedIn.
##