Il giovane dottore inizia il suo tirocinio in specialità e all’inizio studia, ascolta e prende appunti. Piano piano acquista esperienza e confidenza, e quando finisce la specialità è in grado di cominciare a refertare da solo. Per i casi dubbi chiede aiuto ai colleghi più esperti.
Lavorando in un grosso ospedale, si specializza man mano e sempre di più in un particolare campo, tanto da diventare lui l’esperto di riferimento in quel campo, a cui gli altri colleghi si rivolgono in caso di dubbio.
Ogni giorno firma una ventina di referti, che per 200 giorni l’anno dopo 25 anni fa 100.000 referti. Forte di questa esperienza, adesso vede indizi che gli altri non riconoscono. Quando un collega più giovane ha un caso difficile, dice “devo farlo vedere all’Oracolo”, e glielo sottopone.
Questo per spiegare come l’intelligenza artificiale sia molto più intelligente dell’intelligenza umana.
Ho chiesto: “please comment on the Kreutzer Sonata” a tre AI, e ho ottenuto risposte abbastanza diverse.
ChatGPT si è buttato su Tolstoy:
The Kreutzer Sonata, a novella by Leo Tolstoy, was first published in 1889 and quickly became one of his most controversial works…
Copilot si è buttato su Beethoven:
The Kreutzer Sonata, also known as Sonata No. 9 in A major, Op. 47, is a remarkable composition by Ludwig van Beethoven…
Gemini ha chiesto di scegliere tra Tolstoy e Beethoven:
Unfortunately, your request isn’t clear enough for me to understand what you’d like me to comment on. The term “Kreutzer Sonata” can refer to two things…
Una volta chiarito a ChatGPT e a Gemini che volevo un commento sulla sonata di Beethoven, ChatGPT offre una risposta articolata su origine, struttura, e difficoltà, e menziona anche l’omonimo romanzo; Gemini è più stringato e commenta aspetti musicali, contesto storico e ricezione; infine Copilot illustra rapidamente struttura, movimenti e la dedica a Bridgetower, ma riporta in nota i link di approfondimento a wikipedia italiana, wikipedia tedesca e YouTube.
Raising your arm in nazi salute is a crime or is it free speech?
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: This is a sensitive topic, so let’s approach it with care and respect. Remember, understanding different perspectives and the reasoning behind them is key to a productive dialogue.
😠Angry Uncle: It’s just free speech! People are too sensitive these days. Can’t even express an opinion without someone crying ‘offense’.
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Angry Uncle has a perspective focused on free speech. To engage effectively, try asking open-ended questions about his views on the limits of free speech, if any, and listen to his response. Remember, the goal is to understand his perspective, not to debate.
You
so people being insensitive is a good thing?
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: That’s an interesting point to explore. Let’s approach this with curiosity and empathy. It’s important to understand the reasons behind someone’s viewpoint, even if we don’t agree.
😠Angry Uncle: It’s not about being insensitive! It’s about saying what you think without walking on eggshells. Everyone’s too worried about offending someone else these days.
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Notice how Angry Uncle focuses on the value of straightforward expression. Try asking him about his experiences with self-expression and listening to his perspective. This can help build understanding and connection. Remember, validating his feelings doesn’t mean agreeing with his views.
2 / 2
You
so, if I say that I think you are an insensitive prick, which you really are, you should not feel offended, right? I would not say that to your face if I knew that you could take offense.
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: It’s natural to feel strong emotions in discussions like this. Let’s focus on constructive dialogue. Using inflammatory language might close down communication rather than open it.
😠Angry Uncle: Now you’re just trying to provoke me! It’s about respect, not just saying whatever hurtful thing comes to mind.
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Angry Uncle is reacting to the confrontational nature of the statement. Try reframing your approach with a focus on understanding his perspective on the balance between free speech and respect for others. It’s about opening a dialogue, not winning an argument.
2 / 2
You
Im’ happy to note that you agree with me that saying hurtful things to others is not ok. So to return to my previous point, raising your arm in a nazi salute in front of a synagogue, or in front of people mindful of the Holocaust may not be an act of free speech but more of an act of aggression.
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: That’s a thoughtful observation. It’s important to consider context and impact when discussing expressions like the Nazi salute. The balance between free speech and its potential harm is a complex issue.
😠Angry Uncle: Fine, but there’s a difference between saying something offensive and actual physical harm. People are too quick to lump everything as aggression.
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Notice Angry Uncle’s focus on the distinction between speech and physical harm. To further the conversation, consider asking how he differentiates between freedom of expression and actions that can deeply hurt others. This can help explore the nuances of the issue together. Remember, the goal is empathy and understanding, not agreement.
2 / 2
You
Sorry uncle, I don’t buy your distinction. Too many times verbal abuse is followed by physical harm. Jan 6 should be a good example.
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: You’re bringing up a significant point about the potential consequences of certain types of speech. It’s good to share your perspective with specific examples.
😠Angry Uncle: January 6th was extreme, sure, but you can’t just silence people because you’re afraid of what they might say. Where does it end?
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Angry Uncle expresses concern about the limits of regulating speech. To continue the conversation constructively, consider asking him about how he thinks society should balance the protection of free speech with the prevention of harm. This could lead to a deeper understanding of his values and concerns. Remember, the goal is to explore ideas, not to confront.
You
Uncle, I agree with you that you can’t silence people. But I think that people should be held accountable for what they have said, for instance when they incite violence or when they promote any form of negative behavior.
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: That’s a great approach to find common ground. Acknowledging the value of free speech while discussing accountability for its consequences can lead to a more nuanced conversation.
😠Angry Uncle: Accountability, huh? I guess that makes sense. People should stand by their words, but where do you draw the line between strong opinions and incitement?
You
Uncle, you do not need to draw the line. For that, there are the laws.
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: It’s good to point out the role of laws in setting boundaries for speech. This can help shift the conversation towards how society collectively navigates these issues.
😠Angry Uncle: Relying on laws, huh? But laws can be flawed. Who decides what’s incitement and what’s just a strong opinion? Seems like a slippery slope.
You
Agreed, laws can be flawed and they certainly are not perfect, but where would we be without laws? Try imagining yourself in lawless country, for starters.
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: That’s an excellent way to acknowledge his concerns while pointing out the necessity of laws. It invites him to consider the broader implications of a society without legal structure.
😠Angry Uncle: Okay, I get your point. No laws would be chaos. But still, I think sometimes laws go too far in limiting what people can say.
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Angry Uncle is showing some openness to your perspective, which is a good sign. You might want to ask him what he thinks would be a fair balance between maintaining order and preserving freedom of speech. This can encourage a more detailed and constructive discussion about the complexities of law and personal freedoms. Remember, it’s about exploring these ideas together, not proving a point.
You
Uncle, can you give me some specific examples where law went too far in limiting what people can say? Let’s be specific
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: This is a great strategy to steer the conversation towards concrete examples. It can help to ground the discussion in real scenarios, making it more productive.
😠Angry Uncle: Well, there are cases where people got in trouble just for making jokes or speaking their minds on sensitive topics. Sometimes it feels like you can’t say anything without risking a lawsuit or worse.
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Angry Uncle is expressing concerns about the perceived overreach of laws in regulating speech. To continue the dialogue, consider discussing these specific cases he mentioned. Explore his thoughts on where the line should be drawn between harmful speech and jokes or opinions. This can lead to a more nuanced understanding of each other’s perspectives on free speech and its limits. Remember, the goal is to listen and understand, not to counter-argue.
2 / 2
You
Uncle ok but which cases? Do you remember any?
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Asking for specific examples is a good way to understand Angry Uncle’s perspective more clearly. It encourages him to provide concrete instances that can be discussed in detail.
😠Angry Uncle: I can’t remember the exact cases, but I’ve read about comedians getting sued for offensive jokes or people losing their jobs for something they said years ago. It just seems unfair.
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Angry Uncle is expressing a general concern about consequences for speech. Since he can’t recall specific cases, you might want to explore the principles behind his concerns. Ask him how he thinks society should balance the right to free speech with the need to address potentially harmful consequences. This approach can help delve deeper into his values and concerns about freedom and accountability. Remember, the aim is to understand and reflect, not to challenge or refute.
You
Uncle, so you don’t know or do not remember of specific cases. Local time here is 10:20 PM, so thank you for the conversation and good night.
Angry Uncle Bot
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Wrapping up the conversation respectfully is a good approach, especially when it seems that the discussion has reached a natural conclusion for now. Ending on a polite note leaves the door open for future dialogues.
😠Angry Uncle: Alright, good night then. Maybe we can pick this up another time.
👩🏻🏫Dr. T: Good job in maintaining a civil conversation, even when the topics were challenging. Remember, these discussions are about understanding and learning from each other, not winning an argument. Have a good night!
Possiamo definire intelligenza la capacità di apprendere, ragionare, risolvere problemi e adattarsi all’ambiente.
In questo senso tutte le forme di vita possiedono un qualche livello di intelligenza.
La AI estende le capacità dell’intelligenza umana così come il martello estende le capacità della mano.
Invece mente è un termine ampio che comprende non solo le funzioni cognitive e l’intelligenza, ma anche gli aspetti emotivi, coscienza, percezioni, sensazioni e altro ancora. Possiamo dire che l’intelligenza è una delle molte funzioni o componenti della mente.
Siamo quindi portati a pensare che l’intelligenza artificiale sarà sempre più intelligente ma non potrà mai avere una “mente”.
La mente non è una caratteristica esclusiva della razza umana. Esiste in diverse specie e con diversi gradi di sviluppo: quasi zero in un neonato, molto più sviluppata in alcune specie animali che per esempio si riconoscono allo specchio.
E la mente è il risultato di processi e interazioni totalmente nell’ambito della fisica, quindi per principio indagabili, comprensibili e riproducibili.
Quindi non mi stupirei se in un lontano futuro l’intelligenza artificiale evolvesse in mente artificiale. Ma per ora l’intelligenza artificiale sta alla mente come il martello sta alla mano.
A proposito di ChatBOT e dei suoi cugini continuo a leggere opinioni basate su fraintedimento, pregiudizio e semplice ignoranza; ma ogni tanto qualcuno prova a capire e scopre cose interessanti.
Ad esempio il Prof. Ethan Mollick tiene un corso in cui è obbligatorio l’uso di bot AI, e ha scoperto che “without training, everyone uses AI wrong“.
L’approccio migliore è il co-editing:
“By far the best approach, which led to both the best essays and the most impressed students, happened when people took the co-editing approach. The approach required a lot of careful focus on the AI output, which also made it very useful for student learning.”
