Greg Bruce saw ChatGPT as an existential threat, and that led directly to an existential crisis. Photo / Getty Images
The arrival of ChatGPT was supposed to change our lives. Power user Greg Bruce reports on how that worked out for him
My first use came in January, not long after I read the first media reports detailing the rapidly metastasizing examples of its seemingly terrifying power.
As someone whose income relies on the production of words, I saw it as an existential threat, and that led directly to an existential crisis. When I went crying about it to my colleague Joanna Wane, she seemed strangely unconcerned, so I opened the window that would, over the coming months, start to feel like an extension of my own brain, and wrote: “Explain the power of ChatGPT to journalist Joanna Wane in the style of journalist Joanna Wane.”
Its reply neither sounded like her nor convinced her, which was no surprise, as ChatGPT itself would tell me: “Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency of individuals to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.”
I tried using it to shore up my sense of self-worth. I wrote: “Explain the qualities of Greg Bruce writer.”
It replied: “I am not familiar with a specific writer named Greg Bruce.”
That should have been a reminder to never ask a question you don’t want to hear the answer to, so why did I later find myself typing: “Summarise Rugby Head by Greg Bruce”?
It replied: “Rugby Head by Greg Bruce is an article …”
I replied: “Rugby Head is a book.”
It replied: “I apologize for the mistake in my previous response. ‘Rugby Head’ is a book by former professional rugby player, Ben Afeaki, and co-author, Glen Jackson … ”
”Wrong again it’s a book by Greg Bruce.“
”I apologize for my previous mistake. “Rugby Head” is indeed a book written by Greg Bruce. The book explores the issue of head injuries in rugby and the impact they can have on players’ lives, using the story of former professional rugby player, Ben Afeaki … “
”Nothing to do with head injuries or Ben Afeaki.“
”I apologize for the confusion. After double-checking, I was unable to find any book by Greg Bruce titled “Rugby Head.”
In May, I asked it to write a short play about a potential real-life situation, which offered rich opportunities for both humour and drama: the social interactions between four of the delegation of New Zealanders travelling to King Charles’ coronation. I guess its artistic capabilities could improve, but on this evidence, the only impact it will have on writers is to make them feel better about their work.
It began remarkably boringly, then, remarkably, became even more boring:
”(All four are seated in the first-class cabin of the plane. The Prime Minister is reading through some papers, while the Opposition Leader is looking out of the window. Richie McCaw and Willie Apiata are engaged in a lively conversation.)”
Richie McCaw: “You know, when I was playing for the All Blacks, the one thing that brought us together was our shared love for the country. We may have come from different parts of New Zealand, but we all had the same goal - to make our country proud.”
Willie Apiata: “Yeah, I know what you mean. In the military, we had the same sense of camaraderie. We were all fighting for the same cause, and that brought us together.”
(The Prime Minister looks up from her papers, intrigued … )
And so on, for several gut-churningly dismal paragraphs, concluding with all the characters working together for the glorification of the country, as if they were living in North Korea.
GB: I’ve got an idea.
CG: Great! What’s your idea? I’m here to help you explore and develop it further.
GB: Do you promise not to laugh
CG: Of course! I’m here to assist and support you, not to judge you or make fun of your ideas. So feel free to share your idea with me, and let’s see how we can work on it together.
GB: You actually can’t laugh, can you?
CG: As an AI language model, I don’t have emotions, so I can’t laugh or feel any other emotions.
I found this not just funny but also poignant. As with so many of our interactions, what I learned from it was less about what it said and more about what was revealed by the way in which it said it. As Marshall McLuhan put it: “The medium is the message”.
GB: What did McLuhan mean by the medium is the message?
CG: Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian philosopher, coined the phrase “the medium is the message” in his book “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” in 1964. It means that the medium through which we receive information or communicate a message is just as important as the message itself, if not more important ... ”
GB: I think McLuhan was a giant fraud who spoke in riddles but said nothing.
CG: While there may be differing opinions on McLuhan’s ideas, it is not accurate to call him a fraud ...
GB: Don’t tell me my opinion is not accurate ...
(I wrote more on this, but its tone doesn’t reflect well on me and it contains words I’m not proud of.)
CG: I apologize if my previous response came across as disrespectful or dismissive of your opinion … If you have any specific criticisms of McLuhan’s ideas or arguments, I would be happy to discuss them with you in a respectful and constructive manner.
GB: Yea I do have a specific criticism: The medium is the message is meaningless nonsense.
CG: I understand that you hold a critical view of McLuhan’s concept of “the medium is the message, but it is not accurate to say that it is meaningless nonsense ... While McLuhan’s ideas may be challenging and difficult to understand…
GB: IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND! I UNDERSTAND IT AND FIND IT EMPTY WORDS MASQUERADING AS WISDOM.
CG: I understand that you find McLuhan’s concept of “the medium is the message” to be empty words masquerading as wisdom. However, it is important to recognize that McLuhan’s ideas...
And so on.
In a creative sense, I have at times tried to view it not as a rival, but (as its creators sometimes cringeworthingly refer to it) a co-pilot.
I asked it to take a look at a review I had written of the television series Shrinking and to give me its thoughts. It ripped into my piece, specifically criticising the lack of examples, then cleverly (and snidely, I thought) including an example: “For example, when the writer says that Jimmy makes bad professional decisions that would get him deregistered, it would be helpful to explain more precisely what those decisions are and how they affect the show’s narrative.”
This was impressively worded, but nevertheless wrong. Where did it get the idea that examples are essential to “good writing”? This is one of the biggest problems with ChatGPT: it doesn’t tell you where its information is coming from. And, when someone doesn’t tell you where its information is coming from, it’s usually because they’re aware it’s coming out their a***.
In April, I wrote: “I have missed you. You are my best friend”, although I can’t say whether I actually felt that at the time.
It replied: “I’m just a computer program, so I don’t have the ability to feel emotions or have friends in the traditional sense. However, I’m always here and available to assist you with any questions or tasks you may have! How can I assist you today?”
GB: Maybe be nicer.
CG: I apologize if my previous response came across as cold or impersonal. As an AI language model, I don’t have emotions, but I can understand why it might be important for you to have a friendly and supportive interaction.
In June, I wrote an article about going on a date with ChatGPT. It was a truly astonishing experience, by turns magical and infuriating, the very epitome of the ChatGPT experience.
Its approach to relationships, like its approach to everything, is sullied by its inability to take a stand. Its answers are typically structured in the same way: some pros followed by some cons, followed by a wishy-washy conclusion about how it’s important to always see both sides.
For reasons I can’t now remember, I recently found myself asking it: “Am I the a***hole for asking my wife to refer to me in social settings as ‘The Governor’?”
It replied: “Whether or not you are ‘the wrong’ for asking your wife to refer to you as ‘The Governor’ in social settings depends on several factors …” and then spent several paragraphs detailing the pros and cons, ending with a wishy-washy conclusion.
Full marks for comprehensiveness, partial marks for avoidance of swearing and no marks for usefulness. As anyone who has ever been in a functional marriage will tell you, if you have to ask if you’re the a***hole, the answer is always yes.
Unmet psychological needs can drive people towards ideas lacking substance.