Link copied.
We want to bridge divides to reach everyone.
Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
A selection of the most viewed stories this week on the Monitor’s website.
Every Saturday
Hear about special editorial projects, new product information, and upcoming events.
Occasional
Select stories from the Monitor that empower and uplift.
Every Weekday
An update on major political events, candidates, and parties twice a week.
Twice a Week
Stay informed about the latest scientific discoveries & breakthroughs.
Every Tuesday
A weekly digest of Monitor views and insightful commentary on major events.
Every Thursday
Latest book reviews, author interviews, and reading trends.
Every Friday
A weekly update on music, movies, cultural trends, and education solutions.
Every Thursday
The three most recent Christian Science articles with a spiritual perspective.
Every Monday
Loading…
It’s easier for the general public to grasp what is going on when complicated computerized processes are explained in terms of human cognition.
February 13, 2023
I had a chance to try out Meta’s chatbot BlenderBot 3, an artificial intelligence system that is designed to converse with humans. Within three or four text exchanges, I forgot I was talking to a machine. It seemed to get snarky, and I wondered whether I had somehow put it on the defensive. It used punctuation like my teenage daughter – lots of exclamation points and smiley faces. It also failed to accurately describe what a limerick is. 
OpenAI’s ChatGPT can compose newspaper articles, college admission essays, emails, and books that large percentages of people identify as written by a human. The temptation to think of and talk about these bots as if they are human is nearly irresistible. 
But should we do this, not so much for the machines, but for ourselves?  
Much of the discourse around artificial intelligence (AI) anthropomorphizes it, directly or indirectly. Since ChatGPT was released to the public in November, social and print media have been full of people wondering whether it is “sentient.” 
In contemporary philosophy, sentience is the bottom rung on the ladder of consciousness – a sentient being, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is “one capable of sensing and responding to its world.” A fish is sentient, by this definition. Colloquially, though, people use it interchangeably with conscious, a state often thought to be unique to humanity. 
It’s strikingly easy to imagine that today’s chatbots are sentient while conversing with them, and the language we use to talk about them often reinforces this impression. 
One article explains that AI is now able to “pay attention to” important words and phrases. Another article says that AI “understands” which online shoppers are most likely to make a purchase. 
When AI makes things up – as when BlenderBot 3 claimed that a limerick is a poem with an ABBA rhyme scheme – it’s called “hallucination.” 
It’s easier for the general public to grasp what is going on when complicated computerized processes are explained in terms of human cognition.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily.
Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
It is possible, though, to say similar things in ways that make a point of reinforcing AI’s “machineness.” Let’s bring on the iterative processing algorithms, parallelization, and the machine learning, transformers, and bots. The more we can talk about AI with language that counteracts rather than enables our tendency to anthropomorphize, the better.  
I am not suggesting that we should all start being rude to Siri or use disparaging terms when talking about BlenderBot. But perhaps we should be conscious of the ways we talk about AI as if it is human. Because it is not.  
Already a subscriber? Login
Monitor journalism changes lives because we open that too-small box that most people think they live in. We believe news can and should expand a sense of identity and possibility beyond narrow conventional expectations.
Our work isn’t possible without your support.
Already a subscriber? Login

Link copied.
Dear Reader,
About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:
“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”
If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.
But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.
The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.
We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”
If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.
Subscribe to insightful journalism
Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
A selection of the most viewed stories this week on the Monitor’s website.
Every Saturday
Hear about special editorial projects, new product information, and upcoming events.
Occasional
Select stories from the Monitor that empower and uplift.
Every Weekday
An update on major political events, candidates, and parties twice a week.
Twice a Week
Stay informed about the latest scientific discoveries & breakthroughs.
Every Tuesday
A weekly digest of Monitor views and insightful commentary on major events.
Every Thursday
Latest book reviews, author interviews, and reading trends.
Every Friday
A weekly update on music, movies, cultural trends, and education solutions.
Every Thursday
The three most recent Christian Science articles with a spiritual perspective.
Every Monday
Follow us:
Your subscription to The Christian Science Monitor has expired. You can renew your subscription or continue to use the site without a subscription.
Return to the free version of the site
If you have questions about your account, please contact customer service or call us at 1-617-450-2300.
This message will appear once per week unless you renew or log out.
Your session to The Christian Science Monitor has expired. We logged you out.
Return to the free version of the site
If you have questions about your account, please contact customer service or call us at 1-617-450-2300.
You don’t have a Christian Science Monitor subscription yet.
Return to the free version of the site
If you have questions about your account, please contact customer service or call us at 1-617-450-2300.

source