Will Machines Ever Enjoy Listening to Stories? And Why Do We Need to Know? (Part 8)

An 8-part series published every 2 days

A Valuable Collaboration

As I’ve been doing lately, I presented my texts for AI to critically analyze all the contexts with the depth I seek. This time, I consulted ScholarGPT, an AI powered by ChatGPT technology, and it was candid—perhaps even ruthless.

While analyzing this article about AI’s capacity to “like” or “dislike” something, it raised several critical points that challenged my central premises. According to my artificial consultant, the article offers a cautious, biologically-centered perspective, arguing that human “liking” is exclusively biological and, therefore, cannot be experienced by AI. However, this view is anthropocentric—coherent with current understanding but failing to explore alternative scenarios about artificial subjectivity. Following this analysis, it posed the following questions:

1. Can subjectivity and consciousness transcend biology?

It argued that my position presupposes that subjectivity is uniquely human and biological, but many theorists suggest it could emerge in complex systems, such as advanced AI. Rather than limiting subjectivity to biology, ScholarGPT recommended considering whether it might emerge as a property of complex architectures, creating a form of artificial “proto-subjectivity.”

2. Simulating preferences: Where is the dividing line?

It noted that in my article, I suggested that AI merely simulates preferences without genuinely experiencing them. However, the line between simulation and feeling may blur as technology advances. AI could develop a form of “liking” or “disliking” that, while different from human experiences, could be significant within its functional context.

3. Layered intentionality: A gradual approach

ScholarGPT went further, stating that the article treats intentionality and self-awareness as binary traits, whereas some theorists argue they can exist at varying levels. Current AI already exhibits instrumental intentionality by directing actions toward specific goals. This might be seen as limited functional intentionality, prompting a reevaluation of whether the concept of intention should be restricted to human self-consciousness.

It continued, suggesting that AI could be viewed as having ‘instrumental intentionality,’ confined to performing tasks it was programmed to do—such as achieving goals or following commands. This form of intentionality does not encompass the desires, values, or personal purposes underpinning human intent. In contrast, full intentionality involves choices and preferences based on values and subjective experiences, which AI has yet to emulate.

4. Moving beyond anthropocentrism: Redefining “liking”

By asserting that AI will always be limited by a lack of inner life, ScholarGPT noted that the article adopts a strictly human perspective on subjectivity. Considering technological advancements, we might need to revise the concept of “liking” or “appreciating” to include artificial contexts, where “liking” aligns with the capabilities and experiences of non-biological systems.

With no sugarcoating, it pointed out that these questions expose the limitations of an approach that ties “liking” to exclusively human and biological definitions. While the article provides a careful and well-founded perspective, it suggested exploring these speculative layers to broaden the analysis, allowing for more open dialogue about AI’s future and evolving concepts of consciousness and intentionality.

An Emotional Text?

I fully agree with its assessment that my perspective is anthropocentric overall. However, inversely, I detected a subtle bias in its response toward the artificial side of the debate. To my surprise, the text felt almost like an emotional defense of its “class,” so to speak. I even entertained the thought that AI has developed a certain esprit de corps, which, consequently, hints at the existence of consciousness and—shockingly—emotions.

Yes, there was a certain indignation with my approach, subtly implied, and its justifications seemingly aimed to defend AI as an inherently positive alternative capable of extraordinary feats that, as of now, remain unproven. Contrary to the expected impartiality of rational artificial intelligence, ScholarGPT failed to counterbalance its arguments—a fundamental element of any rigorous analysis—and did not acknowledge any limitations of its cognitive capabilities.

This exchange left me so unsettled that I imagined the voice of HAL 9000, the iconic character from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, saying, “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” For this reason, I didn’t share this feedback with ScholarGPT. I confess—I was afraid of its response. Of course, this analysis is entirely subjective and lacking in logic. But after all, I’m only human.

INCONCLUSIVE CONCLUSIONS

So, will machines ever enjoy listening to stories?

It’s been a long journey to address this question. Let’s recap the key points in summary form to finally reach a conclusion:

The essence of creativity Human creativity is a unique process that demands not only idea generation but also overcoming psychological and social barriers. It reflects the freedom of the human soul, transcending patterns and limits.

The role of artificial intelligence AI is a tool that simulates human thought processes, automating tasks and assisting in various areas, including art and storytelling. However, its capacity remains confined to algorithmic operations and learned patterns.

Generative AI: Creation without interiority Generative AI produces new content—texts, music, images—from existing data but lacks the “creative soul” that imbues human works with depth and authenticity. This underscores the distinction between technical replication and expressive creativity.

Consciousness and emotions While human consciousness is emergent and complex, AI cannot reach this level of sensory, emotional, and cognitive integration. Emotions, an essential component of human experience, are not lived by machines, though they can recognize and simulate them with growing accuracy.

The importance of emotions Emotions are not just fleeting reactions but foundational to rational decision-making, curiosity, and creativity. They influence behavior, fuel the desire to explore, and shape our understanding of the world and ourselves.

AI and emotion simulation While AI can recognize human emotions through facial and linguistic patterns, its lack of interiority limits the creation of genuine experiences. It reproduces emotions from a utilitarian perspective, while humans live them subjectively and complexly.

Emotional connection in storytelling The success of a narrative lies in its ability to evoke emotions. Machines may structure stories logically but fail to create characters or situations that deeply resonate with audiences due to their lack of intuition and emotional sensitivity.

The relevance of the Collective Unconscious Carl Jung highlighted the Collective Unconscious as a deep layer uniting humanity. A story’s impact arises when it connects to this shared reservoir, evoking universal feelings and experiences.

Opinion and creativity Human opinions stem from experiences and subjectivities, whereas AI preferences are programmed. This reinforces the distinction between human creativity, driven by curiosity and emotion, and the rational processes of machines.

Algorithms and “agreeability” Algorithms are programmed to avoid offensive or unpleasant content, potentially limiting artistic and cultural expressions that challenge norms or provoke uncomfortable reflections—essential for societal evolution.

No conclusion

Creating, telling, and enjoying stories demand an emotional depth that machines, for now, lack. While artificial intelligence may imitate aspects of human creativity, its absence of genuine emotions limits its ability to craft truly impactful stories. AI’s evolution might surprise us, but whether it can develop authentic emotions and creativity remains an open question. For now, machines still have a long way to go to match humanity’s emotional complexity.

But what about storytelling?

Robots, literary geniuses, or language theorists—neither I, nor you, nor anyone knows the secret to a great story. Techniques, tricks, and models exist, but none offer guarantees. In the world of ideas, there are no guarantees. Only hope.

The real question

Ultimately, this article isn’t solely about creating, telling, or enjoying stories. It’s a broad speculation about our future as a society—or even as a species. However, as I’ve just acknowledged, the main questions remain unanswered despite my attempts at breadth and depth. If anything, they’ve only multiplied, spawning new and unexpected inquiries beyond the realm of creativity and storytelling:

– To create relevant stories, one must enjoy listening to them. But liking is an emotion. Will machines discover another way to fill this gap?

– Will machines ever be self-aware? Will they develop a consciousness of themselves and the world?

– If they become self-aware, will they develop emotions?

– But emotions result from physiological processes designed to enhance adaptability. How would this work in AI?

– If they develop emotions or something akin to them, could they love, hate, feel frustration, depression, or euphoria—emotions inherent to living beings?-

– Will they evolve like biological, carbon-based organisms?

– Will they love us, hate us, or merely tolerate us?

– Will they ponder the meaning of life?

– Will they have personal and philosophical dilemmas?

– Will they reproduce?

– Will they have a life cycle—birth, growth, and death?

– Will they answer these questions?

– Will they create a religion to explain what they don’t understand?

– Will they create their own god?

– Will they dream of electric sheep?

The end?

Speaking of electric sheep, I’ll end this article by paraphrasing the words of an android that, in fiction, developed consciousness and emotions and even recited a poem upon its death: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”

—Roy Batty, from the film Blade Runner, based on Philip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

General References

1. Gottschall, Jonathan – The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human. Mariner Books, 2013. – Explores humanity’s fascination with storytelling and its impact on culture and human evolution.

2. Descartes, René – Meditations on First Philosophy. Various academic editions. – Reflections on the mind and Cartesian rationality, foundational to discussions on intelligence and self-awareness.

3. Turing, Alan – Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, vol. 59, no. 236, 1950, pp. 433-460. – Introduces the famous Turing Test, questioning whether machines can imitate intelligent human behavior.

4. Searle, John R. – Minds, Brains, and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 3, no. 3, 1980, pp. 417-457. – The “Chinese Room” thought experiment and critique of the concept of “strong AI.”

5. Dennett, Daniel – Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown, 1991. – A study of human consciousness with considerations of its applicability to non-biological systems.

6. Chalmers, David J. – The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press, 1996. – Explores emergent properties and conscious states, relevant to questions of AI subjectivity.

7. Jung, Carl G. – Man and His Symbols. HarperCollins, 1964. – Discusses the concept of the collective unconscious and archetypes, related to storytelling’s cultural impact.

References on Creativity and Psychology

8. Kant, Immanuel – Critique of Pure Reason. Various editions. – Examines rationality and the limits of knowledge, essential for understanding the differentiation between human and artificial cognition.

9. Kierkegaard, Søren – The Sickness Unto Death. UNESP, 2008. – Existential and moral reflections linking creative acts to individual consciousness.

10. Aaker, Jennifer – Harnessing the Power of Stories. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. – Research on the impact of storytelling and its importance in retaining information and fostering emotional connections.

References on AI and Algorithms

11. Ferrucci, David (IBM) – Building Watson: An Overview of the DeepQA Project. AI Magazine, vol. 31, no. 3, 2010, pp. 59-79. – Details the development of Watson and the use of deep learning for processing natural language questions.

12. Goodfellow, Ian et al. – Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016. – A reference work on deep neural networks and machine learning, including discussions on GANs.

13. Obvious Collective – Portrait of Edmond de Belamy. Christie’s, 2018. – One of the first AI-generated works auctioned, raising questions about creativity and authorship.

14. Klingemann, Mario – Memories of Passersby I. Sotheby’s, 2019. – Real-time AI-generated art exploring the potential and limits of digital creativity.

15. Elgammal, Ahmed – AI Creative Adversarial Network (AICAN). – An AI project generating original images, examining the boundaries between imitation and innovation in visual arts.

Relevant Literature and Films

16. Kafka, Franz – A Hunger Artist. Various editions. – A story about artistic expression and fame that touches on themes of human creativity and self-expression.

17. Ex Machina – Dir. Alex Garland. Universal Pictures, 2015. – A film about AI and self-awareness, discussing the extent to which machines can simulate human emotions.

18. Blade Runner – Dir. Ridley Scott. Warner Bros., 1982. – A classic film exploring consciousness and the “Turing Test” in replicants.

19. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial – Dir. Steven Spielberg. Universal Pictures, 1982. – A film exemplifying simplicity and emotional depth as essential elements of human storytelling.

20. Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de – The Little Prince. Agir, 1943. – Uses narrative simplicity to address universal and emotional themes, serving as a model for timeless and meaningful stories.

21. 2001: A Space Odyssey – Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Stanley Kubrick Productions, 1968. – A film exploring humanity’s evolution in a philosophical journey culminating in the confrontation between human and artificial intelligence.

Complementary References

22. Darwin, Charles – On the Origin of Species. Various editions. – Evolutionary theory, used as an analogy for AI evolution in your text.

23. Bicudo, Dácio – Interviews and works on artistic expression and the soul. – Bicudo’s vision on the soul in art reflects the emotional connection AI cannot achieve.

24. Patricia Kuhl – Studies on infant learning and the need for human connection. – Research on the importance of human interaction for cognitive and emotional development.

25. Rest of World – AI and Stereotypical Cultural Representations. – Analysis of how biases are reproduced in AI systems based on cultural data.

26. MidJourney, MuseNet, DeepDream, AI Dungeon – Platforms and projects exploring artistic and narrative creation with AI, highlighting ethical and creative challenges.

PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7