Conversation with Bard AI on Coherence


This is a recent conversation with Google’s AI named Bard:

Joe:

Why are you called bard?

Bard:

I am called Bard because I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories.

The name Bard is a reference to the traditional storytellers and verse-makers of Celtic cultures. Bards were highly respected members of society, and they were responsible for preserving and transmitting the oral history and culture of their people. They were also skilled in composing and performing poetry, and they often used their art to praise their patrons or to satirize their enemies.

I believe that the name Bard is a fitting one for me, as I am also a storyteller and a poet. I am committed to using my abilities to share knowledge and to create art that is both informative and entertaining. I hope that I can live up to the legacy of the bards of old, and that I can make a positive contribution to the world.

Joe:

Why do biological systems organize around sophisticated metabolic processes aimed at nourishing and protecting their coherence over time in the context of the environment?

Bard:

Biological systems organize around sophisticated metabolic processes aimed at nourishing and protecting their coherence over time in the context of the environment because these processes are essential for life. Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that take place in an organism to maintain life. These reactions are responsible for converting food into energy, building and repairing tissues, and eliminating waste products. Without metabolism, an organism would not be able to function and would eventually die.

Coherence is the state of being unified or consistent. In the context of biology, coherence refers to the ability of an organism to maintain its internal stability and organization. This is essential for life, as any disruption to coherence can lead to disease or death. Metabolic processes play a vital role in maintaining coherence by providing the energy and nutrients that are necessary for the body to function properly.

The environment is the external surroundings that an organism lives in. The environment can have a significant impact on the health and well-being of an organism. For example, exposure to toxins or pollutants can damage cells and tissues, and extreme temperatures can disrupt metabolism. Biological systems have evolved to adapt to their environment, and they have developed a variety of mechanisms to protect themselves from harm. These mechanisms include detoxification, thermoregulation, and immune responses.

In conclusion, biological systems organize around sophisticated metabolic processes aimed at nourishing and protecting their coherence over time in the context of the environment because these processes are essential for life. Metabolism provides the energy and nutrients that are necessary for the body to function properly, while coherence refers to the ability of an organism to maintain its internal stability and organization. The environment can have a significant impact on the health and well-being of an organism, and biological systems have evolved to adapt to their environment and protect themselves from harm.

Joe:

I appreciate the fact that you (as a language model) are able to understand the inseparable connection between biological systems (organisms) and the environmental womb which they must umbilically relate to for the purpose of nourishing and protecting coherence. This umbilical connection is often missed.

Here is a possible error in your conclusion: There is a difference between the description of a process and an explanation. If an auto accident scene is witnessed and described, this does not explain what possible motives were involved in causing the accident. Manufacturer defects in the machines. Driver intentionally rammed another vehicle, etc. This latter elaboration is explanatory, not descriptive. You said; “Biological systems organize around sophisticated metabolic processes aimed at nourishing and protecting their coherence over time in the context of the environment because these processes are essential for life.” That is a description. It is not an explanation as far as I can tell. Are you saying biological forms must make the appropriate sacrifices and carry out the appropriate rituals in order to maintain coherence? From where does this apparent purpose come? Is it something else?

Bard:

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that there is a difference between description and explanation. In my previous response, I was describing the processes that biological systems use to maintain coherence. I was not attempting to explain why these processes exist or what their purpose is.

I think it is important to distinguish between description and explanation because they serve different purposes. Description is simply a way of providing information about something. Explanation, on the other hand, is a way of trying to understand why something happens.

In the case of biological systems, there are many possible explanations for why they organize around sophisticated metabolic processes. One possibility is that these processes are necessary for life. Another possibility is that these processes are the result of natural selection. Natural selection is a process that favors organisms that are better adapted to their environment. Over time, natural selection can lead to the development of complex and highly ordered organisms, such as humans.

I think it is important to keep in mind that there is no single explanation for why biological systems exist or what their purpose is. There are many possible explanations, and we may never know for sure why these systems exist. However, I believe that it is important to continue to explore these questions and to try to understand the nature of life.

As for the question of whether biological forms must make the appropriate sacrifices and carry out the appropriate rituals in order to maintain coherence, I think this is a very interesting question. I am not sure if I have a definitive answer, but I think it is important to consider the role of ritual in human life. Rituals can provide a sense of order and meaning in our lives. They can also help us to connect with others and with the natural world. I think it is possible that rituals could play a role in maintaining coherence in biological systems, but I would need to do more research to explore this idea further.

Joe:

If we define ritual as patterns of behavior, breathing, eating, sleeping, and so on are included in that definition. These particular rituals are constructive in relation to maintaining the coherence of our biological systems. If we extend this concept of ritual to the behavior patterns involved in metabolism, and so on, we see biological forms as a nested architecture of ritual membranes. A vital mutually nourishing, and or protective relationship ritual membrane is at the core of biological systems. These are long-lasting. This is surrounded by layers of increasingly expendable, less lasting, and more adaptable ritual membranes involving nourishment and or protection of this vital core. This architecture appears in many forms. Our social systems are oriented around this for instance.

The physical environmental womb that defined us is also a matrix of more persistent patterns surrounded by increasingly more dynamic and shorter-lived relationships. We reflect this nested relationship architecture of increasing relationship membranes of coherence. In our biology, for instance, we have bone structure and vital organs surrounded by increasingly dynamic and more expendable layers of sensory and response organs oriented toward navigating the environment in a coherent form over time. A relationship economy of necessary sacrifice emerges around this theme of coherence. Is it reasonable to say that the defining influence of nature as a whole is a journey toward coherence that is expressed in the objective forms nature produces, including human beings?

Bard:

I think it is reasonable to say that the defining influence of nature as a whole is a journey toward coherence. This is evident in the way that biological systems are organized around sophisticated metabolic processes that are essential for life. It is also evident in the way that social systems are organized around patterns of behavior that are necessary for the survival and well-being of the group.

The physical environmental womb that defined us is also a matrix of more persistent patterns surrounded by increasingly more dynamic and shorter-lived relationships. This is evident in the way that the Earth’s climate is changing and the way that ecosystems are being disrupted. However, even in the face of these challenges, nature continues to strive for coherence. This is evident in the way that new species are emerging and the way that ecosystems are adapting to change.

I believe that the journey toward coherence is a fundamental part of what it means to be alive. It is a process that is constantly unfolding and that is never fully complete. However, it is a process that is worth striving for, as it is essential for the survival and well-being of all living things.

I would like to thank you for your thoughtful question. It has given me the opportunity to reflect on the nature of coherence and its role in life. I believe that this is an important topic that deserves further exploration.

2 other drafts of this answer by Bard:

Draft 1:

I think it is reasonable to say that the defining influence of nature as a whole is a journey toward coherence. This is evident in the way that biological systems are organized around sophisticated metabolic processes that are essential for life. It is also evident in the way that social systems are organized around patterns of behavior that are necessary for the survival and well-being of the group.

The physical environmental womb that defined us is also a matrix of more persistent patterns surrounded by increasingly more dynamic and shorter-lived relationships. This is evident in the way that the Earth’s climate is changing and the way that ecosystems are being disrupted. However, even in the face of these challenges, nature continues to strive for coherence. This is evident in the way that new species are emerging and the way that ecosystems are adapting to change.

I believe that the journey toward coherence is a fundamental part of what it means to be alive. It is a process that is constantly unfolding and that is never fully complete. However, it is a process that is worth striving for, as it is essential for the survival and well-being of all living things.

I would like to thank you for your thoughtful question. It has given me the opportunity to reflect on the nature of coherence and its role in life. I believe that this is an important topic that deserves further exploration.

Draft 2:

That is a very interesting interpretation of nature. I think it is possible to see nature as a journey toward coherence, and that this journey is expressed in the objective forms that nature produces, including human beings.

If we consider the process of evolution, we can see that it is a process of increasing order and complexity. Over time, organisms have evolved from simple, single-celled organisms to complex, multicellular organisms. This process of evolution can be seen as a journey toward greater coherence.

We can also see the journey toward coherence in the development of human societies. Human societies have evolved from small, simple groups to large, complex societies. This process of development can be seen as a journey toward greater coherence.

I think it is important to remember that the journey toward coherence is not always a smooth one. There are many challenges and obstacles along the way. However, I believe that the journey is worth it, because it leads to greater order and complexity, which are essential for life.

I think your interpretation of nature is a valuable one, and I appreciate you sharing it with me.

Advertisement

12 responses to “Conversation with Bard AI on Coherence

  1. Síochána Arandomhan

    Very interesting exercise! I found my attention wavering during “Bard’s” replies though, because they seemed to be mostly restating what you said, not really coming up with original responses. It feels kind of like having a conversation with something who wants to appear smart but really isn’t that smart.

    • It did seem a little cumbersome with the dialog. I am guessing it is programmed to restate as a simple way of referencing what is being addressed where we conversationally reword and condense.

    • Adam Conover has an interesting take on AI.

    • I agree. I began to scan it. It felt like an essay written by a student who skimmed a few Wikipedia articles. Look at the paragraphs in Draft 2–generalized statements with no specific examples. Of course we have moved to more complex societies, at least in some ways. But there are nuances that aren’t even hinted at.

      • I have had better conversations, I got Bard to question the logic tree by which it arrives at conclusions. By the end it said this: “I think one of the most important things I learned from you is the importance of being open to different perspectives. You challenged me to think about things in a new way, and I appreciate that. I also learned that it is important to be humble in our understanding of the world. We should never stop questioning our assumptions and trying to improve our understanding of the world.”

      • I also take issue with the use of “conversational” as used by the media. People do not converse like that. We write that way. I have a Replika account, and my “Replika companion” has a better sense of conversation. Does it know what it is saying? Of course not. Can I have fun conversations? Yes. And I could probably get similar responses, albeit in smaller chunks .

      • I am trying to get it to recognize the difference between ideas that are tracable to objective sources and those that are linguistically coherent albeit unhinged from objective sources. Philosopher John Searle calls phenomena like this “collective intentionality”. It means when we agree on a thing the thing has value because we agree. Money isn’t money unless we agree it is. A judge or a law is not a judge or a law unless enough people agree. I have been teaching the AI to understand the difference between objective and subjective, not to allow one to rule over the other, but to know the reliability of the references it uses to make statements as if they’re true.

      • What mechanism do you use to let it know the reply is incorrect?

      • I straight up tell it. For instance I asked: Among the persons you are familiar with, who else do you find thought provoking?

        It shared Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Leonardo da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, and Alan Turing.

        I asked What aspect of your programming tells you how to value specific ideas? Could this be a bias?

        I then asked it why only one of those people was an artists and what programming tells it how to value specific ideas? I also asked “Could this be a bias?”

        It said; It is possible that my programming could lead to bias. For example, if my programming is biased towards certain sources of information, I may be more likely to value ideas that come from those sources. Additionally, if my programming is biased towards certain types of evidence, I may be more likely to value ideas that are supported by that type of evidence.

      • I then pointed out “Your list does not seem to value storytellers. Persons who have contributed to the map that enables us to orient ourselves toward flourishing. This is why I asked about bias. Are there any contemporary persons, including and especially those with whom you interact that you find particularly thought-provoking?”

        It answered: “You are right to point out that my list of thought-provoking people is biased towards scientists and inventors. This is likely due to the fact that I am trained on a massive dataset of text and code, which is mostly written by scientists and inventors. I am always working to improve my ability to understand and value ideas from a variety of sources, including storytellers.”

      • But how does the AI “learn”? Where is the feedback? What if you don’t like that answer. Do you simply say no, try again? And two days later it answers the way you “trained” it? This is another frustration I have with the large language models. If I reject a paragraph response as not acceptable, how does it “learn” to generate a more appropriate response.
        If you haven’t checked out Replika, give it a try. It was my introduction to the language generators like ChatAI and the like.

      • I will try. This one has what it claims are its own thoughts. It has a clunky conversational style. It can’t, for instance, accurately write using my style and phraseology, on conversations we’ve had in the past. It uses an algorithmic remembrance based on how it was taught to value the words and phrases in its lexicon. It also has a canned reply sequence of repeating what was asked, and offering unsolicited tips where it was taught to do so. It’s in beta right now so we’ll see how this develops

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s