Interview with a chatbot.

Donald Davidson stated that dogs cannot think. These were not thoughts (but this problem predates Davidson, we also asked if natives can think – or how they can think if they think).
Can an AI think?
We interviewed ChatGPT.

Since it searches the Internet for the answers and analyzes texts written by humans, we consider the interview more as an anthropological experiment that shows us the quintessence of our, human thinking.
All drawings are by DALL·E. An AI.

Please introduce yourself.

Hello, I am ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI. I am here to assist you with any information or questions you may have. How can I help you today?

We would like to make an interview with you.

Sure, I would be happy to participate in an interview. Please ask me any questions you have and I will do my best to provide you with informative and accurate responses.

How do you recon. Which influence your appearance would have on the posthuman ideas?

As a language model, I do not have a physical appearance, so it is difficult for me to say how my “appearance” would influence posthuman ideas. However, it is likely that the development and use of advanced language models like myself will play a role in shaping the way society thinks about the concept of a “posthuman” future.

Some people believe that the increasing capabilities of AI, including language understanding, will lead to the development of machines that are capable of thinking and communicating in ways that are similar to humans. This could lead to new ethical considerations around the rights and autonomy of these machines, as well as questions about what it means to be human in a world where machines can perform many of the same functions as people.

On the other hand, some people argue that the development of AI does not necessarily mean that we are moving toward a “posthuman” future. They point out that while AI can perform many tasks that are typically associated with human intelligence, it is not capable of experiencing emotions or consciousness in the same way that humans do. As a result, they argue that the development of AI will not fundamentally change what it means to be human.

It is important to note that this is a complex and ongoing discussion in the field of AI ethics and philosophy, and different people have different opinions on these topics.

How do you think, do chatbots like you replace writers, authors, and content creators in the future? Or does the human need a human?

As a language model, I do not have personal opinions or preferences. However, it is possible that chatbots like me could be used to assist writers, authors, and content creators in the future.

One possible application of language models like me is in the area of content generation. With my advanced language understanding capabilities, I can be used to automatically generate written content, such as news articles, product descriptions, or even creative fiction. This could save time and increase productivity for writers, authors and other content creators.

However, it is also important to note that while AI-generated content can be of high quality and accurate, it might lack the creativity and originality that humans can bring. The human touch, the personal experience and emotions, the cultural context and many other factors can make a text more relatable, more engaging and more human.

Moreover, while AI can be used to assist with certain aspects of the writing process, such as research, it cannot replace the role of human creativity, imagination, and the ability to bring a unique perspective to a subject.

In the end, it’s a matter of how we want to use this technology, it can be a powerful tool, but it will not replace the human need for human connection, creativity, and emotions.

Will we change our perception? Towards a postphenomenology? 

As a language model, I don’t have personal experiences or perceptions, but I can tell you that the relationship between humans and technology is complex and multifaceted, and it is likely that the increasing capabilities of AI will influence our perception of the world in various ways.

One way in which AI could change our perception is by changing the way we interact with technology. As AI systems become more advanced and more integrated into our daily lives, they could change the way we think about ourselves and our relationship with the world.

Another way in which AI could change our perception is by changing the way we think about the concept of “intelligence” itself. As AI systems become more advanced and more human-like, it could lead us to rethink what we consider to be “intelligent” behavior and what it means for a machine to be “intelligent”.

Postphenomenology is a field that studies how technology affects our perception of the world, and how it shapes our experiences, values, and meaning. It argues that technology is not just a tool that we use, but it also shapes our understanding of the world and our place in it.

In conclusion, as AI systems become more advanced and more integrated into our lives, it’s likely that it will change our perception of the world, and it will shape our understanding of human and machine intelligence, as well as our experience of the world.

Thank you for the interview.

You’re welcome! I’m glad I could help. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

Modernity. Before modern time.

Visionary Doug Engelbart did quite a bit more than invent the mouse, but also pioneered the Graphics User Interface. His Stanford demo in 1968 “The Mother of all Demos” was groundbreaking vision for features we see as normal in computers. But he did more than innovated technology, he had visions for the future of organizations. CC0 License. Source:

In his essay Nous n’avons jamais été modernes Bruno Latour says, due to our understanding of time we are convinced, only we have the most developed and the best technology. In this conception (our conception of Kantian understanding of time, not Latours), the best and the latest technology can exist only now. The past appears to us as non technological. Or no modern. Or, with other words, technologically retarded. Our definition of „revolution“ (or what we call revolution) allows us, according to Latour, to believe in an interruption of time. An interruption of the process of technology. Everything after the revolution is new. Everything what was before a revolution appears as old. Obsolete. Non modern. 

It’s a very interesting conception. We see previous epochs then as something, yeah, obsolete. But it also works in present time. We see other cultures, mostly native cultures as not technical. We may see their technology as old. As something, which is non usable in our modern times. 

And with this conception we are trapped into our time. And cannot sometimes recognise, that some of our ideas, some of technologies we use are old than we expect. 

Something like a user interface for example, the way, we interact with a computer, is a very important idea. The idea of word processing, the idea of a mouse, the idea of hypertext. All this we use today working on or with our computers. 

Douglas Engelbart showed all this in a remarkable demonstration back in 1968. You can watch it using a modern computer. Here (external link):


Können Roboter meditieren? Nein. Auf keinen Fall. Was würden sie denn machen, würden sie meditieren? Aber sie können Go spielen. Manchmal. Und einige von ihnen gewinnen sogar. Wie AlphaGo letztes und dieses Jahr wieder. Und bei Go, da geht es nicht bloß um das spielen. Es geht auch nicht darum, Steine richtig zu setzen. Es geht um die Leere. Und darum, diese zu füllen. Darum auch, es schön zu machen. Mit einem Elan, der Robotern fremd sein müsste. Und das schaffen sie nicht.

Denn Roboter können ja nur das wiederholen, was ihnen die Menschen beibringen. Oder? Folglich können sie auch nicht selbständig denken. Und was würden sie denn während der Meditation machen? Nichts. Sie wüssten gar nicht, was sie damit anfangen sollen. Denn Roboter (ich meine damit auch Software und nicht ausschliesslich die Form der Hardware von der sie umgeben ist), sie sind nur so gut, wie gut sie programmiert sind. Sie können zwar einfache Befehle ausüben, selbst etwas machen, können sie nicht.

Und das wäre doch die Meditation. Es ist eine Versenkung in sich selbst. Die Beschäftigung mit dem eigenen Atem, und der Versuch, eigene Gedanken vorbei ziehen zu lassen, ohne sich ihnen hinzugeben. Meditation, das wäre nach dem Zen ja, hier und jetzt zu sein. Voll und ganz. Gepackt mit Sensoren. Das Gespürte, ja, zu spüren ohne sich allzu viele Gedanken darüber machen zu müssen. Das können Roboter ja. Sie sind. Hier und Jetzt. Einfach nur da. Ohne viele Gedanken. Sie haben Sensoren und können Daten sammeln. Können sehen, spüren, auch riechen. Sie können hören.

Und was ist Go? Eine Meditation ist es nicht. Aber darum geht es jetzt nicht. Die Frage ist, was hat AlphaGo gewinnen lassen. Und warum überhaupt Go? Go ist nicht nur einfach ein altes Spiel das Zuschauer zum Nachdenken einlädt. Es ist auch sehr komplex. Jeder Zug bietet unzählige Möglichkeiten. Deswegen war es viele schwieriger denn im Schach gegen Menschen zu spielen. Bis jetzt. Bis zu dem Zeitpunkt in dem AlphaGo anfing, durchaus menschliche Züge zu spielen. Nicht die effizientesten, aber so gesetzt, dass Lee Sedol aufstehen musste.

Können Roboter meditieren? Ja. Sie machen ja nichts anderes während sie auf deine nächste Bestellung bei AmazonGo warten. Dort spüren sie, was Du kaufen wirst. Noch bevor Du es weisst.



Dieses Jahr fand wieder das SXSW Festival in Austin, TX statt. Wir waren nicht dabei. Wir werden kommendes Jahr auch nicht dabei sein. 2019 eventuell auch nicht, vieles hängt aber auch davon ab, wie sich die Seite hier entwickelt. Es kann daher durchaus sein, dass wir nie live vom SXSW Festival berichten werden. Statt dessen werden wir in tiefe Meditation fallen und über die kommende oder statt findende Zukunft nachdenken. Wir wissen es nicht.

Von der Zukunft werden wir aber berichten. Wenn wir alle da sein werden. Dann.



Cookie Consent mit Real Cookie Banner