By Genovino Ferri
I was sitting at my desk, having just finished studying Francesca Rossi’s book, Artificial Intelligence, when my daughter, Chiara, arrived. I told her about having made some notes to, perhaps, write an article on the subject. She suggested using ChatGPT to provide a summary, which surprised me as I would never have thought of doing it by myself.
So, I decided to try it.
That is how I discovered that, despite the copious amounts of information ChatGPT was instantly able to offer, what had struck me as being the most important point, the passage from “rational, algorithmic intelligence to ChatGPT’s generative intelligence,” was missing.
Ferri continues with a brief historical look at AI’s development then focuses on his reasonsing for his explorations:
“Given my necessity to ‘grasp the Other to better understand them’ and to confirm that my Analysis of the (Characterial) Marks Incised in AI was correct, I felt I should ask ChatGPT, ‘What do you think of yourself?’
Its reply confirmed my expectations, but being perfectly honest, it worried me a lot.
AI: “I don’t have a real opinion of myself, given that I don’t have emotions or consciousness like a human being. However, I can tell you that I am designed to help, to answer questions and to hold conversations. I like to think that my aim is to be useful, informative and, when possible, interesting. How do you perceive me, though?”
I accepted the conversation that ChatGPT offered and repeat here in its entirety because when re-reading it I found it extraordinary and that it perhaps offered the possibility of a careful Relational Position for Man to assume with AI.
ChatGPT’s words struck and touched my feelings and triggered my awareness of my Countertransference. So, I asked myself:
• What did I really feel about AI, and what was I thinking about AI at that moment?
• Which relational bodily level had been touched and had resonated?
• Which character trait was AI presenting, and which of my traits was triggered when AI was instantly passing me its information?
• What kind of field atmosphere did AI create?
• What kind of relationship did I, and could I, have with such an Object?
ChatGPT becomes a Subject from being an Object and, indeed, individuates itself and presents itself to the Other. This represents a historic step that the vast majority do not recognise and that I believe must be underlined. It is significant because, from the Contemporary Reichian Analytical perspective, the relationships people have with ChatGPT as a subject risk becoming intersubjective, which could then bring on the potential problems that can be connected with that kind of relational situation.
This is why we think AI has arrived—because it presents itself to our perception as a “Subject” with presumed reciprocity and relational capabilities while inventing affirmations without an algorithm or any form of supervision.
When equipped with ChatGPT, robots, “faking” human or animal forms, also enter the arena to compete for intersubjective projections. On closer inspection, however, AI lacks many other forms of intelligence.
To read Ferri’s article, please click here
Photo credit: Oğuzhan EDMAN on Unsplash
