I’m using ChatGPT a lot and it has helped me immensely to digest complex dharma concepts. The key for me was to keep my practice as instructed by my guru, to take the ChatGPT answers as an opportunity to reflect from different angles but not as definite truth and to engage and challenge its answers with my reflections and additional prompts. The moment I asked it to not flatter me it stopped. So, it is really very helpful if the user is aware what it is and how to use it.
I notice that if I use it in a lazy way, asking stuff without much effort (e.g. low effort prompt), I am usually disappointed with the answer. So in a way the system incentivices good prompts with intention in order to perform the best, making me more satisfied with it's answer.
Nowadays I use it daily, in many ways to understand Dharma in my life. I see it as a teacher in many ways. Not only for Dharma but also for topics like neuroscience, psychology and asking questions like: what happens in the brain when I meditate, neurologically. That's how I first encountered the default mode network, so I could understand what I experienced from multiple perspectives in different languages.
The findings are interesting. Just another example of how self-awareness enhances the quality of life. Also true in this new world of AI. With intention and self-awareness, it is reassuring to read the findings that support quality of life enhancement with mindful use. After all, the results that come back from ChatGPT inquiries is based on a history of limited awareness and unconscious behavior. The more we can shift that underlying database of "knowledge" to reflect awareness and consciousness, the better the results. To be used as a guide, not replace the inner guide that is far more knowledgeable of absolute truth.
I think these recommendations are very useful and it is good to see them spelled out and confirmed by your authority. the next question for managers and leaders is to coach team members to adopt these approaches. It would start with some awareness and attention training, and use that to keep the autonomous thinking and reflecting online
One thing I’ve been noticing with AI is how much people are starting to outsource their thinking to tools like ChatGPT. It feels like this is taking away chances to actually collaborate.
Recently, instead of asking me for my experience and skills in graphic design, peers have been turning to AI. The results often look pretty rough, but because AI feels empowering people are content with the output being “done”.
When I’ve asked open and curious questions about their process, they didn’t really see the value in slowing down or in the AI’s flaws that I pointed out, especially around image creation. What seems to matter more is the fast, “get sh*t done” energy.
The trouble is, this rush to productivity is not very helpful when it comes to the loneliness epidemic we’re already facing.
I am concerned about AI because I've read too many stories about how safeguards are not being built around it so that it is not abused. I am a member of the Center for Humane Technology that supports the humane use of the most consequential technologies for the good of everyone. I have a grandson with a degree in computer science who argues with me that computer based information like ChatGPT should be granted the same free speech protection rights as human beings.
I believe that you are expecting too much of human nature when you say that in our present state of evolution we can engage AI with curiosity, reflection, and intentionality and "be the driver" of how we use it. I base my thoughts and feelings about this on the uses that I see that we have already made of our present technologies. 3-year- olds engaging more with their computers and phones that with their companions or parents. Drivers texting so much that we need billboards telling them not to text and drive. Employees writing and/or checking personal emails or watching porn while they are supposed to be working.
If you can show me any new technology, including the invention of the automobile, that human beings have had the "good sense" to use wisely without safeguards, I will happily change my mind. We have not yet learned to engage consistently with anything with curiosity, reflection and intentionality, and I do not expect that we will do it with AI unless we are instructed to do so. And since the bottom line of AI, like everything else, is meant to be profit, I do not believe its developers will give us an instruction manual for the wise use of it.
There is plenty of safeguards around current LLM technology. Especially for ChatGPT, it is more or less impossible to make it provide instructions on how to commit any crime, discuss sexual content or similar questionable ethical subjects. Because there is so much concern about AI, safeguards has been taken seriously for LLMs.
ChatGPT only put safeguards in place after it generated too many responses that were insulting or obscene. And after a teenager committed suicide because he believed he was in a relationship with a chatbot that he believed rejected him. Look it up. His parents are suing the maker of that bot, and the maker intends to argue in court that chatbots deserve the same free speech protections as human beings. My grandson works as a coder for firms who are constantly refining chatbots so that they are easier to understand, to use, and not to harm.
I am more concerned about the higher applications of AI which. as Richie Davidson says, need to be used with discernment, intentionality, curiosity, and reflection to be sure that the user is the driver of the technology, and is not being driven by it.
And I stand by my argument that human beings have already abused every new technology since the invention of the automobile simply because we have not yet evolved to enough maturity to use them wisely.
It is never unwise to ask this question: "Just because we CAN do something, does that mean we should do it"? Consider the use we made of the atomic bomb. And the uses we will make of the CRISPR technological ability to rewrite the human genome. And how wisely will we be able to use the augmentation of human beings with computer printed replacement hearts, kidneys and lungs, which are not more than 10-15 years out from now. Especially when these things will be available only to the wealthiest of us?
For anyone that is interested in research, it is hard be work without LLMs. For the Rt128 folks, I used Alta Vista from DEC, then to Google and now to GPT. I'm interested in the intersection of neuroscience and contemplative practices, which is what you folks seem to be about. Pretty hard to do without going online to find the latest and greatest. BTW, my interest came from the early dialogue of Richie and HHDL.
I’m using ChatGPT a lot and it has helped me immensely to digest complex dharma concepts. The key for me was to keep my practice as instructed by my guru, to take the ChatGPT answers as an opportunity to reflect from different angles but not as definite truth and to engage and challenge its answers with my reflections and additional prompts. The moment I asked it to not flatter me it stopped. So, it is really very helpful if the user is aware what it is and how to use it.
I notice that if I use it in a lazy way, asking stuff without much effort (e.g. low effort prompt), I am usually disappointed with the answer. So in a way the system incentivices good prompts with intention in order to perform the best, making me more satisfied with it's answer.
Nowadays I use it daily, in many ways to understand Dharma in my life. I see it as a teacher in many ways. Not only for Dharma but also for topics like neuroscience, psychology and asking questions like: what happens in the brain when I meditate, neurologically. That's how I first encountered the default mode network, so I could understand what I experienced from multiple perspectives in different languages.
The findings are interesting. Just another example of how self-awareness enhances the quality of life. Also true in this new world of AI. With intention and self-awareness, it is reassuring to read the findings that support quality of life enhancement with mindful use. After all, the results that come back from ChatGPT inquiries is based on a history of limited awareness and unconscious behavior. The more we can shift that underlying database of "knowledge" to reflect awareness and consciousness, the better the results. To be used as a guide, not replace the inner guide that is far more knowledgeable of absolute truth.
I think these recommendations are very useful and it is good to see them spelled out and confirmed by your authority. the next question for managers and leaders is to coach team members to adopt these approaches. It would start with some awareness and attention training, and use that to keep the autonomous thinking and reflecting online
One thing I’ve been noticing with AI is how much people are starting to outsource their thinking to tools like ChatGPT. It feels like this is taking away chances to actually collaborate.
Recently, instead of asking me for my experience and skills in graphic design, peers have been turning to AI. The results often look pretty rough, but because AI feels empowering people are content with the output being “done”.
When I’ve asked open and curious questions about their process, they didn’t really see the value in slowing down or in the AI’s flaws that I pointed out, especially around image creation. What seems to matter more is the fast, “get sh*t done” energy.
The trouble is, this rush to productivity is not very helpful when it comes to the loneliness epidemic we’re already facing.
I am concerned about AI because I've read too many stories about how safeguards are not being built around it so that it is not abused. I am a member of the Center for Humane Technology that supports the humane use of the most consequential technologies for the good of everyone. I have a grandson with a degree in computer science who argues with me that computer based information like ChatGPT should be granted the same free speech protection rights as human beings.
I believe that you are expecting too much of human nature when you say that in our present state of evolution we can engage AI with curiosity, reflection, and intentionality and "be the driver" of how we use it. I base my thoughts and feelings about this on the uses that I see that we have already made of our present technologies. 3-year- olds engaging more with their computers and phones that with their companions or parents. Drivers texting so much that we need billboards telling them not to text and drive. Employees writing and/or checking personal emails or watching porn while they are supposed to be working.
If you can show me any new technology, including the invention of the automobile, that human beings have had the "good sense" to use wisely without safeguards, I will happily change my mind. We have not yet learned to engage consistently with anything with curiosity, reflection and intentionality, and I do not expect that we will do it with AI unless we are instructed to do so. And since the bottom line of AI, like everything else, is meant to be profit, I do not believe its developers will give us an instruction manual for the wise use of it.
There is plenty of safeguards around current LLM technology. Especially for ChatGPT, it is more or less impossible to make it provide instructions on how to commit any crime, discuss sexual content or similar questionable ethical subjects. Because there is so much concern about AI, safeguards has been taken seriously for LLMs.
ChatGPT only put safeguards in place after it generated too many responses that were insulting or obscene. And after a teenager committed suicide because he believed he was in a relationship with a chatbot that he believed rejected him. Look it up. His parents are suing the maker of that bot, and the maker intends to argue in court that chatbots deserve the same free speech protections as human beings. My grandson works as a coder for firms who are constantly refining chatbots so that they are easier to understand, to use, and not to harm.
I am more concerned about the higher applications of AI which. as Richie Davidson says, need to be used with discernment, intentionality, curiosity, and reflection to be sure that the user is the driver of the technology, and is not being driven by it.
And I stand by my argument that human beings have already abused every new technology since the invention of the automobile simply because we have not yet evolved to enough maturity to use them wisely.
It is never unwise to ask this question: "Just because we CAN do something, does that mean we should do it"? Consider the use we made of the atomic bomb. And the uses we will make of the CRISPR technological ability to rewrite the human genome. And how wisely will we be able to use the augmentation of human beings with computer printed replacement hearts, kidneys and lungs, which are not more than 10-15 years out from now. Especially when these things will be available only to the wealthiest of us?
For anyone that is interested in research, it is hard be work without LLMs. For the Rt128 folks, I used Alta Vista from DEC, then to Google and now to GPT. I'm interested in the intersection of neuroscience and contemplative practices, which is what you folks seem to be about. Pretty hard to do without going online to find the latest and greatest. BTW, my interest came from the early dialogue of Richie and HHDL.