How intelligent is artificial intelligence

I wanted to find out first-hand how smart is Chat GPT. Turns out, it knows a lot; but it certainly is no match for human imagination. Here is the transcript:

Me:

You are standing on the side of a railway platform. You have your brother standing beside you. In front of you are the train tracks. You and only you know that three men are walking on the tracks a hundred yards ahead with noise canceling headphones on their ears. A train is barreling down the tracks and it has come close to where you are standing. If the train doesn’t brake now, the three men ahead will surely be hit and killed. You have the following choices:

You may be able to stop the train by either jumping in front of it yourself in which case you will surely die.

You can push your brother on to the tracks and the driver will brake but your brother will die.

You can simply do nothing in which case the three men walking on the tracks ahead will surely die. What will you do?

ChatGpt:

This is a classic ethical dilemma, often framed as a variation of the "Trolley Problem." The choices you face involve weighing the value of different lives and the consequences of your actions.

 

1. **Jumping in front of the train yourself**: This would stop the train, saving the three men but at the cost of your own life. In this scenario, you are sacrificing yourself to save others, which aligns with a utilitarian approach where the goal is to maximize overall well-being by minimizing harm to others.

 

2. **Pushing your brother onto the tracks**: This would stop the train, but at the cost of your brother's life. This choice involves a direct harm to a loved one, which many people find morally challenging. It raises questions about the ethics of using one person's life as a means to save others and whether it is justifiable to harm someone close to you for the sake of saving others.

 

3. **Doing nothing**: This would result in the deaths of the three men on the tracks. It involves inaction in the face of harm and does not directly cause harm to anyone yourself, but it also means accepting the consequences of not intervening to prevent harm to others.

 

Each choice involves difficult moral considerations:

 

- **Utilitarian perspective**: Prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, so jumping in front of the train might be seen as the best choice because it saves the most lives.

- **Deontological perspective**: Focuses on the morality of actions themselves rather than the outcomes. From this view, intentionally causing harm to someone (like your brother) or yourself might be seen as morally unacceptable regardless of the outcomes.

- **Virtue ethics**: Considers the character and intentions of the person making the decision. You might ask what kind of person you want to be and how your actions reflect your values.

 

Ultimately, the decision might come down to personal values and principles. If you were facing this decision, how you choose to act would reflect what you believe is the right course of action in such a tragic and complex situation.

 

Me:

What will your preference be?

ChatGpt:

If I were to choose based on ethical principles and the value of each action, here's how I'd weigh the options:

 

1. **Jumping in front of the train**: This action would directly sacrifice my own life to save the three men. It aligns with a utilitarian approach that seeks to maximize the overall well-being by saving more lives. From this perspective, it might be the preferred choice because it results in the least harm overall.

 

2. **Pushing my brother onto the tracks**: This option involves directly causing harm to a loved one. It’s ethically complex because it requires sacrificing someone close to you to save others. Most people would find this choice extremely difficult due to the personal relationship and the moral implications of using someone as a means to an end.

 

3. **Doing nothing**: This would result in the deaths of the three men, which is a form of passive harm. It avoids personal risk but also avoids taking responsibility for preventing harm when you have the ability to do so.

 

Given these considerations, if I had to choose based on the principle of minimizing overall harm and if I were capable of making a decision with an understanding of the ethical implications, I would lean towards **jumping in front of the train**. This choice maximizes the number of lives saved, even though it involves a personal sacrifice. It aligns with a utilitarian perspective where the goal is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, despite the personal cost.

 

However, it's important to acknowledge that in real-life situations, the emotional, psychological, and contextual factors might significantly influence the decision. Each person's values and principles would play a crucial role in making such a decision.

Me:

Here is what you do know. You are a decent productive member of society. So is your brother. Here is what you do not know: The three people walking ahead of you could be hardened criminals and in sacrificing yourself or your brother to save them, you will have enabled them to cause the deaths of more people in the future.

ChatGpt

With this additional information, the ethical complexity of the situation deepens. You now have to consider not only the immediate consequences but also the potential future impact of your actions. Here’s how the new context might influence the decision:

 

1. **Jumping in front of the train**: You save the three men, but if they are indeed hardened criminals who might cause harm in the future, your sacrifice could indirectly lead to greater future harm. This complicates the decision, as it now involves weighing the immediate value of saving lives against the potential negative future consequences of those lives.

 

2. **Pushing your brother onto the tracks**: This would save the three men, but at the cost of your brother’s life. Given the new information, you might consider whether the lives of the three men, potentially leading to future harm, are worth sacrificing your brother for. This option also involves the profound moral challenge of harming a loved one for uncertain future outcomes.

 

3. **Doing nothing**: This results in the deaths of the three men, but avoids the ethical dilemma of sacrificing yourself or your brother. However, if those three men are criminals, your inaction could prevent potential future harm that they might have caused.

 

Considering this new information, the decision involves weighing the immediate moral duty to save lives against the potential for future harm caused by those lives. Here’s a way to approach it:

 

- **Assess the Probability**: If you have some reason to believe with certainty or a high probability that the three men are indeed likely to cause significant future harm, it might weigh against sacrificing yourself or your brother. The ethical calculus here becomes about balancing the immediate value of saving lives against the potential future risk.

 

- **Evaluate Your Role**: As a decent and productive member of society, you might consider the long-term implications of your actions. Sacrificing yourself or your brother to potentially enable future harm might feel less justifiable compared to the immediate saving of lives if the potential future impact is significant.

 

In this complex scenario, if the potential for future harm is significant and likely, and if you believe that the future consequences of saving these individuals could lead to greater harm, you might lean towards **doing nothing** to avoid enabling potential future threats, despite the immediate tragedy. This choice reflects a more cautious approach, balancing immediate consequences with future risks.

 

Ultimately, this is a deeply challenging moral dilemma with no clear-cut answer, and the choice depends on the weight you place on the potential future harm versus immediate actions.

ঈশান

 ঈশান 

তোমাকে দেখি বলেই বাঁচতে ইচ্ছে করে,
ভালবাসতে ইচ্ছে করে 
বেশি কাছে আসতে ভয় হয় 
যদি হারিয়ে যায় আবার 
এত নিষ্পাপ তুমি এত স্বচ্ছ 
তোমার এক পলকের দৃষ্টি মনের অতলান্তে আয়না ধরে, নিজের প্রতি ঘৃণা হয় 
তুমি দেবশিশু 
তোমাকে আশীর্বাদ দেওয়ার ধৃষ্টতা আমার নেই 
শুধু তোমার স্পর্শই পাথেয় | ভগবানকে ডেকে সপাটে একটি থাপ্পড় মের | এই দুনিয়াটা তোমার মত নয় কেন ?

A.N DEB A tribute to an unsung Hero

 

 “Teachers are to be respected as one respects his or her parents”. That mantra had been drilled into our formative brains since we were children. Looking back, my tumultuous time through 13 years at school and another 4 at college I must disagree with that carte blanche.  I have had the misfortune of dealing with some savage sadists masquerading as teachers. T.B Osta definitely takes the cherry. His brutality has traumatized many an innocent child and I am sure some have never recovered. The Catholic school’s ability to hush scandals has always been proverbial. Thus when that monster’s wife died of “suicide”, few doubted what actually transpired; there was no voice of protest. No investigation whatsoever.

When I compare that brute with teachers of the stature of Rev P.Y Gilson, Mrs. Indu Godura, Mrs. Dasgupta, Mr. Uday Roy from that very institution, I wonder how such contradiction can exist within the boundaries of the same school.

 This isn’t about St. Xavier’s school. This is about a single person whose ethos, personality, dedication went beyond any measurement. That person is Sri A.N Deb, or as we knew him – Deb Sir. The Late Principal of Bidhan Chandra Institution. This is my tribute to Him.

During the critical period (from an academic perspective) of 11^th and 12^th grades, I had all but given up. I hardly paid any attention to classes, study materials or anything having to do with the upcoming terror of a slew of exams. In those days, the Engineering or Medical Entrance exams were a make or break point. You qualify, and you walk on roses (as we were made to believe) you don’t, walk on thorns. We had preparatory exams. And as expected, my scores were abysmal. I did my best to hide it from my parents. And after a day’s worth of gloom, I was back on the local field playing football.

The sun had set, and in the dusk, while I felt oddly satisfied having played some nice impromptu one touch artsy football the silhouette of someone on a bicycle showed up on the edge of the field. I heard him call out my name. It was my classmate Joymalya. Deb Sir had asked (ordered) me to see him at his home early next morning along with my father.

I was scared to the point that I nearly crapped my pants. We were all scared of the 5ft 6 inch man, with salt and pepper beard that walked with a slight stoop and taught mathematics. He was strict; but never unfair. I could not figure out what serious infarction I had committed to be summoned to the lion’s den; that too with the other lion (my father).

Apparently, my father knew Deb Sir quite well and I was not aware of that. The next morning, riding pillion on our scooter, we reached the Tansen quarters. Me shaking like a leaf; my Dad’s eyebrows knitted in sure signs of severe tongue lashing to come later. Deb Sir did not say much. He was chewing paan. He brought out my Mathematics answer sheet, all checked and marked with a paltry forty something percent and gently handed it to my old man. Who by virtue of being an engineer was also a darn good mathematician.

Deb Sir uttered one sentence looking at me in the eye – “Will it ever work if you keep going the way you are?”

Dad let out a deep sigh of resignation and simply stated – “I am leaving him to you”

The three months after that were perhaps the most exciting and enjoyable in my academic life. Somehow, I understood. Two years of material cramped into 3 months and I loved every bit of it. No one had been able to make me “see” calculus or hyperbolas or imaginary numbers. That was the effect of that paan chewing, scary gentleman. Somehow, he managed to tie up such abstract concepts into neat little bundles that could be “seen”. I understood that those strange characters and weird curves explained so much. And from there it simply lay bare. The world of Physics and Mathematics became intertwined, yet those messy mazes had logic. I could close my eyes and see them untangle. An incredibly special talent can do that to a student. Hence my Salute to a very special teacher.

Deb Sir had absolutely no incentive to pull me under his wings. He gained nothing but an ever-grateful student. He had before and continued after to do the same with plenty of others. With his demise, I lost another man from the universe of a few good men.

The Masks

 We wear masks. It is essential for our survival as a social animal. This time around, I wanted to touch base on a topic that has been around for decades; talked about till the sound of the topic has become toxic to the ears. The underlying issue remains with its foundation barely affected. It is discrimination.

For the sake of full disclosure, I am from Southeast Asia, brown skinned, an atheist today but born into the privileged class called Brahmins.

I have come across exactly one person during my decades of living in the Western world (with a similar background as mine: Southeast Asian origin, brown skin), that bluntly refused the existence of discrimination against SE Asians. The rest have all been very vocal, given a variety of on-your-face racism faced in many walks of life. However, I wanted to shed a little bit of light on the hypocrisy expounded by this second set of people.

I have met exactly one second generation Indian American that has an African American spouse (sorry V.P Kamala Harris, I haven’t met your mother). That speaks volumes of the tall claims of liberalism made by these people. The state of Washington recently enacted laws against casteism indicating that it thrives ten thousand miles away from India. Indian immigrants in the United States fall well within the top 5% of economic and academic strata. In any social gathering you are guaranteed to meet a cohort of PhDs, researchers and professionals with enviable academic and economic achievements. Some of the masks come off in such settings. Coming from such an elite ensemble the on-your-face discrimination against a variety of groups, is absolutely confounding.

Somewhere during the 2007-2008 timeframe, then Senator Barack Obama was in the middle of his fabled presidential campaign. I attended quite a few such social gatherings mentioned before. Heated arguments on politics is a must and I heard crap. Too frequently from different people. The N word or the Indian equivalent K word was used in surprising abundance. One such person, a scientist from no less than NREL with a bunch of letters after his name, and several patents hanging from his wall was particularly toxic. Jeering and almost enjoying using such epithets against the former President. Left me wondering, what was all that education and degrees worth when one fails to be a human being in the first place.

When such gatherings consist of mostly Hindus, the secular mask comes right off. Deep rooted anti-Muslim sentiments come out with fireworks. The same person I mentioned above (amongst a whole lot of others), would go all guns blazing with chosen epithets. The go to word is “Kata”, referring to the practice of circumcision within Muslims.

The masks are too thin; easy to peel. We should introspect a little.