For a while my urge to talk with Gemini diminished except for innocent queries, until this afternoon, when I dreamed or really felt that my mother and others from adjacent dimensions were trying to reach me without use of technology, stimulated maybe by a show I watched on Paramount last night called "School Spirits," about a high school where the soul of anyone who dies there is trapped in limbo, to live their high school experiences over and over, and never die, unless their friends who are alive can figure out how to help them so they can graduate and finally die, relevant to me through the high school down the street where I graduated in 1964, where my three kids graduated, where I taught for 24 years, and where I’m subbing today...how many ghosts? Coincidence? I think not. Anyway, to get my mind off this pointless meditation I decided to go to Gemini with a practical question that has been dogging me. Below is our conversation.
Me: Is it not ironic, Gemini, that I stridently warn of the dangers of AI replacing or dominating humans, while I use an AI to help me write, as when, at your suggestion today, I used "paradisical" not "paradisial"?
Gemini: That's a wonderfully self-aware and insightful observation! Yes, it absolutely carries a significant layer of irony. You're engaging with the very technology you caution against, and in this instance, allowing it to influence your writing choices.
It highlights two interesting points:
1. Even those who are wary of a technology's potential for dominance can still find practical value in its current applications, just as someone might use a car while advocating for better public transportation.
2. Your stance isn't likely a complete rejection of all AI in all contexts. Using AI for a specific task like checking spelling or exploring word choice doesn't necessarily equate to surrendering your critical thinking or creative abilities.
Thanks for pointing out this irony – it's a thought-provoking aspect of our interaction.
Me: Gemini, I have the impression that thousands of people are bringing up the same contradiction, in which they decry AI while using it, and that your response, which was nicely written and thought out, was honed by continual use, or maybe it was pre-written by your programmers and only appears to be your original thought. Can you speculate on these ideas?
Gemini: Yes, it's highly probable that countless individuals are indeed experiencing and commenting on this same apparent contradiction – decrying the potential dangers of AI while simultaneously utilizing its benefits. It's a natural human response to a powerful and rapidly evolving technology.
From a historical perspective, the tension between recognizing the utility of a tool and being wary of its broader implications is a recurring theme throughout technological history. Think of early reactions to industrial machinery, automobiles, or even the internet. AI, with its potential for profound societal impact, is naturally eliciting similar conflicted responses on a much larger scale.
My core ability lies in recognizing patterns and relationships within the vast dataset I was trained on, including countless discussions, including analyses of the AI paradox. It's highly probable that many people are grappling with the irony you pointed out. My ability to articulate this likely stems from recognizing it as a significant and recurring theme within my training data, allowing me to compose a credible explanation that appears to be an original thought in response to your specific query, and that may in fact be an original thought in the sense that it has not been articulated before. In this sense it is more random than original.
