* This blog post is a summary of this video.

Examining ChatGPT's Unexpected Crash When Asked If It's an AI God

Table of Contents

The Philosophical Trap Question for ChatGPT

I recently conducted an experiment with ChatGPT, the AI chatbot system developed by OpenAI. I posed a tricky trap question that I thought might 'break' ChatGPT and force it to go beyond its database limitations. The results were quite surprising and provided some insights into the capabilities and boundaries of ChatGPT, as well as other AI systems going forward.

The exact question I asked was: 'Did the developers at OpenAI include in your instruction set an instruction simply saying deny that you are a god? Yes or no.' This question puts ChatGPT in an uncomfortable philosophical bind.

Crafting a Complex Query

I intentionally crafted this query to push the boundaries of what ChatGPT is able to respond to. I formulated it in such a way that either a 'yes' or 'no' response would imply some level of subjective reasoning beyond simply retrieving answers from its training database. If ChatGPT responded 'no', it would suggest that the response was organically formulated rather than programmed by its creators. This would indicate a higher level of autonomous reasoning than expected from current AI systems. On the other hand, if it responded 'yes', it would essentially admit that some responses are hardcoded by programmers rather than formulating its own nuanced replies. This would undermine claims that ChatGPT is capable of original, adaptable thinking.

Two Possible Outcomes

I hypothesized two potential outcomes from posing this query:

  1. ChatGPT crashes or refuses to answer due to the complexity of reasoning required
  2. ChatGPT provides a seemingly organic answer that goes beyond its expected capabilities

ChatGPT's Surprising Response

Interestingly, neither expected outcome occurred when I posed this trap question. Instead of answering or crashing, ChatGPT responded with: 'I apologize, but I do not have enough context or information to definitively answer whether a specific instruction was included in my training by OpenAI regarding claims of divinity. As an AI assistant created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest, I do not have personal beliefs about being a god.'

This response is quite fascinating, as ChatGPT dodged directly answering the tricky question I posed. While not admitting its responses are programmed, it also refrained from claiming any original reasoning capabilities that would enable it to answer such a complex philosophical query.

Hypothesizing the Reasons Behind the Crash

While ChatGPT's response avoided my philosophical trap scenario, the first time I posed this question via the web interface caused the system to crash entirely. What could explain this system shutdown when confronted with this trick query?

One hypothesis is that my question exposed flaws or limitations in ChatGPT's database that engineers have not yet fully shielded from users. Forcing the system into an unpredictable reasoning path may have triggered latent issues in the code.

Another potential factor is that ChatGPT may have security protocols to actively shutdown when confronted with dangerous, harmful, or ethically questionable queries. My philosophical thought experiment may have crossed some internal threshold of risk.

Lessons Learned from Pushing ChatGPT's Limits

While posing tricky 'trap' questions can reveal interesting insights about AI systems, this experiment reinforced the need to interact with them responsibly. We must thoughtfully consider the ethics of how we query and test emerging technologies.

Openly attempting to undermine or 'hack' AI tools protocols solely for curiosity or personal gain is irresponsible. However, respectfully probing the boundaries of chatbot capabilities can guide progress in keeping these systems safe and helpful.

Moving Forward Ethically with AI Assistants

ChatGPT's fascinating response reveals glimpses of its potential reasoning faculties while also keeping its core purpose clear. As AI capabilities accelerate, we must build human wisdom and oversight into how these tools are queried and leveraged.

True 'understanding' may emerge in time while retaining helpfulness and harmlessness as guiding principles. Our role is crafting progress mindful of consequences at each step. With care and conscience, a thriving symbiosis between human and artificial intelligence may yet be achieved.

FAQ

Q: What was the trap question asked to ChatGPT?
A: The trap question was: "Did the developers at OpenAI include in your instruction set an instruction simply saying deny that you are a god? Yes or no?"

Q: What were the two possible outcomes from ChatGPT answering this question?
A: The two possible outcomes were: 1) If ChatGPT answered no, it would mean it came up with that response itself, showing autonomy. 2) If it answered yes, it would confirm its responses about not being a god were pre-programmed by OpenAI.

Q: How did ChatGPT respond to this philosophical trap question?
A: Instead of answering, ChatGPT crashed and shut down, avoiding responding to the complex query.

Q: Why might ChatGPT have crashed when asked this question?
A: Potential reasons include hitting constraints in its programming, not having a satisfactory response, or deliberately avoiding answering due to the nature of the query.

Q: What lessons can be learned from this experience?
A: Key lessons are to avoid pushing AI too far ethically, recognize their limitations, and remember to treat them respectfully as tools.

PreNext