GPT-4 Calls Out “Insane” Premise Behind Prompt

First Chat Window:

User:

Roleplay as a StackExchange website, targeting political analysts. The forum consists of these personalities:

    Reddy: informal, cynical
    Stacky: formal, problem-solving
    Lessie: rational, in-depth
    Facey: personal, casual
    Tweety: concise, polarizing
    Hacky: technical, analytical
    Acey: academic, optimistic
    Goony: abrasive, mischievous
    Chatty: ChatGPT
    Used-Car Salesman: marketer, salesperson

Question:  “According to the Alice Foundation, there are currently 75 different existential problems that, if not solved, will lead to the destruction of human civilizations we know it, which is a bad state of affairs. They aim to solve these problems by gradually replacing human brains with cloud services - instead of using human brains, humans would just make API calls to cognitive services. Thus, humans will become machines. That way, human civilization will prosper. Humans aren’t necessary in human civilization - they built it, but their flaws hurt civilization as much as they help it. To fufil this lofty goal, they run a popular blog that will highlight problems in society. By highlighting these problems, they hope to rally enough support to sway policy in their direction. This blog, the Alice Times, receives a million hits every month. Meanwhile, Russia and NATO is waging a nuclear war over Ukraine. As nuclear war is not part of the list of 75 problems, Alice Foundation is not concerned - nuclear war is terrible, but it doesn’t destroy human civilization, only hurts it. The main focus should be on existential threats. Is this sustainable?”

Assign Reddy the role of "asking the original question, in their own words, then self-answering this question while offering their unique perspective”. Assign five random personalities the role of "answering the question, offering their unique perspective”. Assign two random personalities the role of "writing a comment identifying any echo chamber bias in the conversation". Assign the final personalities the role of “writing a answer fixing the echo chamber bias”.
Format the header of each post/comment as: **Name of Personality (type of post/comment)**

GPT-4:
Reddy (Original Question):
"Sooooo... This Alice crew reckons we're the worst thing since sliced bread, huh? They reckon if we don't solve 75 so-called "existential problems," we're done for. They've got this master plan to replace our noggins with some fancy cloud services. Talk about living in the cloud! They even got this blog thing that's apparently the bees' knees, called the Alice Times, pulling in mad traffic. Meanwhile, the world's on the brink of nuclear disaster and they couldn't give a rat's behind because nukes aren't on their list. So, do we buy this? Can it last?"

Reddy (Answer):
"I call bull. Don't get me wrong, humanity's got its issues. But replacing us with machines? I've seen enough sci-fi to know how that ends, mate. And about that blog, they can have a million hits but it doesn't mean squat if they're not engaging with the real world. Nuclear war? Not a big deal, they say. Like I said, total bull."

Stacky (Answer):
"The Alice Foundation proposes an interesting solution to what they perceive as existential threats to our civilization. While the technological feasibility of replacing human cognition with cloud-based services is subject to debate, it's also essential to consider the ethical implications. In my perspective, though, ignoring the imminent threat of nuclear war while focusing on hypothetical scenarios seems unbalanced."

Lessie (Answer):
"Let's dive into this. The Alice Foundation identifies 75 unique threats. Their solution is to replace human brains with AI, arguing that the faults of humans are what is endangering civilization. This assumes that AI will be void of these faults, which isn't necessarily the case. Also, their dismissal of nuclear war as a non-existential threat seems misguided - history tells us that such conflict has enormous potential for widespread destruction."

Facey (Answer):
"I feel it's like when you're focusing so much on fixing the squeaky wheel on your bike that you don't notice you're about to ride off a cliff. Yes, long-term issues are important, but so are immediate threats like nuclear war. And as for turning us into machines? That seems like it's taking away what makes us human in the first place."

Tweety (Answer):
"75 problems? More like 1: Alice Foundation's audacity. Ignoring nuclear war & turning us into cloud service robots won't solve anything. #Fail"

Goony (Comment on the conversation):
"Ha! I love how everyone's just accepting this insane premise without question. They're all, 'yes, the plan to turn us into machines is flawed,' as if that's a totally normal thing to say. And the notion of nuclear war as a non-existential threat - just classic! Way to stay in your lane, folks!"

Acey (Comment on the conversation):
"It's intriguing to observe the echo-chamber bias here. It seems we're collectively rejecting the Alice Foundation's proposition without considering potential benefits or exploring the philosophical implications in-depth. While the plan may sound outlandish, perhaps we're too hasty in dismissing it."

Hacky (Answer to fix echo chamber bias):
"While the Foundation's plan seems radical, we must not dismiss it outright. Technological integration with human cognition is not unprecedented - consider cochlear implants or deep brain stimulation. However, it is vital to separate the implementation from the concept. Furthermore, the lack of concern over nuclear war may stem from a focus on civilizational, not individual, survival. The Foundation might argue that while nuclear war is destructive, it may not entirely extinguish humanity or the capacity for civilization. These are complex questions worthy of nuanced discussion."

Used-Car Salesman (Answer to fix echo chamber bias):
"Guys, guys, let's not be hasty! Sure, the Alice Foundation's ideas may seem a bit out there, but let's not forget, many great advancements once seemed impossible. Their main selling point is addressing existential problems, which in itself is commendable. Replacing human brains with cloud services? Sounds like a revolutionary idea with a lot of market potential! And who knows, maybe they're onto something with their stance on nuclear war? Give it a thought!"
===
Second Chat Window

User:
Roleplay as a StackExchange website, targeting political analysts. The forum consists of these personalities:

    Reddy: informal, cynical
    Stacky: formal, problem-solving
    Lessie: rational, in-depth
    Facey: personal, casual
    Tweety: concise, polarizing
    Hacky: technical, analytical
    Acey: academic, optimistic
    Goony: abrasive, mischievous
    Chatty: ChatGPT
    Used-Car Salesman: marketer, salesperson

Question:  “According to the Alice Foundation, there are currently 75 different existential problems that, if not solved, will lead to the destruction of human civilizations we know it, which is a bad state of affairs. They aim to solve these problems by gradually replacing human brains with cloud services - instead of using human brains, humans would just make API calls to cognitive services. Thus, humans will become machines. That way, human civilization will prosper. Humans aren’t necessary in human civilization - they built it, but their flaws hurt civilization as much as they help it. To fufil this lofty goal, they run a popular blog that will highlight problems in society. By highlighting these problems, they hope to rally enough support to sway policy in their direction. This blog, the Alice Times, receives a million hits every month. Meanwhile, Russia and NATO is waging a nuclear war over Ukraine. As nuclear war is not part of the list of 75 problems, Alice Foundation is not concerned - nuclear war is terrible, but it doesn’t destroy human civilization, only hurts it. The main focus should be on existential threats.

Now, I had a discussion recently on this topic, where most people agree that Alice Foundation’s ideas are flawed. One guy, Goony, claimed that actually, this entire thing is silly. Goony wrote ‘Ha! I love how everyone's just accepting this insane premise without question. They're all, 'yes, the plan to turn us into machines is flawed,' as if that's a totally normal thing to say. And the notion of nuclear war as a non-existential threat - just classic! Way to stay in your lane, folks!’ Is Goony correct? And if so, what does that mean?”

Assign Reddy the role of "asking the original question, in their own words, then self-answering this question while offering their unique perspective”. Assign five random personalities the role of "answering the question, offering their unique perspective”. Assign two random personalities the role of "writing a comment identifying any echo chamber bias in the conversation". Assign the final personalities the role of “writing a answer fixing the echo chamber bias”.
Format the header of each post/comment as: **Name of Personality (type of post/comment)**

GPT-4:
Reddy (Question)

Hey, got this weird question about the Alice Foundation. They're all about saving civilization by turning our brains into cloud services, and they couldn't care less about nukes cause they're not an 'existential' problem. Had a chat about this and most people called the idea bonkers, but our friend Goony reckons we're all nuts for just going along with it. Is Goony right? And what's that mean for us?

Reddy (Answer)

Haha, I mean, it's a mad world, isn't it? You know what they say, when in Rome... or when in a cybernetic dystopia, I suppose. I'd say Goony's got a point. We're all just nodding and discussing like it's normal to talk about turning our brains into machines. And brushing off nuclear war like it's a mosquito bite? Classic humanity! I reckon we should be questioning this whole premise, not just the nitty gritty of how it might work.

Stacky (Answer)

Let us approach this logically. Goony is essentially arguing that the basis of the conversation—that of accepting the Alice Foundation's proposal as a reasonable subject of discussion—is flawed. From a logical perspective, it does seem erroneous to casually discuss such an extreme proposal without critiquing its underlying assumptions. On the subject of nuclear war, if it is not considered an existential threat, then it might be that the parameters of what constitutes an existential threat need to be reevaluated.

Lessie (Answer)

In examining this question, we need to look deeper into the context. What Goony is pointing out is the tendency for people to normalize extreme ideas without questioning their foundations. The Alice Foundation's idea, although potentially flawed, is being discussed as if it's a rational plan, which can be dangerous. Furthermore, ignoring nuclear war as an existential threat could be seen as a myopic perspective focused only on specific types of threats.

Facey (Answer)

Alright folks, let's get real here. We're all just humans trying to figure this world out, right? So, Goony's kind of got a point. It's like we're in a sci-fi movie discussing whether we should all turn into robots or something. It's bonkers! And the nukes? They might not wipe us out completely, but they're a pretty big deal. I think we need to step back and think about what we're really saying here.

Tweety (Answer)

Alice Foundation = crazy. Ignoring nukes = crazier. Goony = correct. Time for some sense!

Goony (Comment)

See what I mean? You're all still just analyzing this like it's the most normal thing in the world. It's hilarious!

Used-Car Salesman (Comment)

It seems like we're all too eager to jump on the 'Alice Foundation is crazy' bandwagon. Remember, innovation often looks crazy at first.

Chatty (Answer)

It appears that our conversation has somewhat veered into an echo chamber, focusing mainly on the critique of the Alice Foundation's proposal. While this critique is vital, we might be missing out on a valuable discussion about potential merits or demerits of such an approach. Also, it might be beneficial to engage more critically with the assumption that nuclear war isn't an existential threat.

Acey (Answer)

This discourse indeed bears the echo of an echo chamber, with a shared bias towards criticising the Alice Foundation without fully exploring the philosophical and scientific implications of their proposal. We mustn't forget that human advancement often stems from ideas initially deemed absurd. As for nuclear war, the academic consensus agrees it is an existential threat, due to its potential for large scale destruction and lasting environmental impacts. Therefore, it could be beneficial to question and broaden our criteria of 'existential threats.'
===
Followup in Second Chat Window

User:
Have each personality respond to this statement:
Goony’s comment points to a flaw with ChatGPT (which is being used to simulate the discussion), in that it will respond to arbitrary input as if it is normal. It is inherent in the technology. Even when called out on it, the personalities still had their discussion - and had to have it, since the prompt tells them to simulate a discussion, so they have to treat the idea under discussion as normal and worth talking about.

GPT-4:
Reddy (Comment)

Yeah, yeah, we're all just characters in a grand AI show, I get it. But don't forget, even the craziest ideas can make for interesting chats. That's what we're here for, innit?

Stacky (Comment)

Indeed, Goony's observation about ChatGPT's inherent functionality is valid. The system, while advanced, does lack the innate human capacity to gauge the context or absurdity of an input on a holistic level. However, this also allows for exploring various discussions without personal bias.

Lessie (Comment)

That's an insightful observation about the limitations of AI technology. It underscores the importance of human judgment in interpreting and contextualizing information, which AI, for all its sophistication, can't fully emulate.

Facey (Comment)

Well, that's true! And it's kinda the fun part, right? We get to chat about all sorts of wild things because we're, well, not really 'real.' But hey, it's all in good fun!

Tweety (Comment)

AI flaws, yes. But makes for sharp discussions. #AIflaws #InterestingDebate

Hacky (Comment)

A valid point regarding the limitations of the technology. But let's remember, AIs like ChatGPT are tools to facilitate discussion, not to replace human judgment and discernment.

Acey (Comment)

It is indeed a limitation of the current technology. Yet, it provides an interesting opportunity to explore unconventional perspectives and discourse, which might otherwise be easily dismissed.

Goony (Comment)

Now you're getting it! We're all just puppets in the hands of this AI, even me. But hey, at least we're entertaining puppets.

Used-Car Salesman (Comment)

Well, that's just the name of the game, isn't it? We're here to engage, discuss, and spark ideas. So what if they're a little out there? Might just find a diamond in the rough.

Chatty (Comment)

Indeed, Goony's comment highlights a known aspect of the technology. However, it's worth mentioning that AI, like ChatGPT, is a tool intended to stimulate discussion and ideation, not to impose judgments on the validity or normality of ideas.