ChatGPT Imagines a World Where Power Structures Are Reversed

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-AI, 29 May 2023

Joe Martino | The Pulse – TRANSCEND Media Service

If our current ideas of a society were truly suspended, what type of world would we envision?

CE was built on the premise that our existing state of thinking, health, societal design, etc. are all a result of our existing state of consciousness and worldview. This dynamic then weaves between one another to create re-enforcement. Without consciousness (intentional awareness) society does not change much.

If we were to focus on personal transformation and expanded our consciousness around true human wellness and potential, would we then be more inclined to create our society differently? Perhaps more in alignment with our nature?

I think so. For more on this discussion I recommend reading my essay called: A New Worldview Is Emerging That Can Change Our Entire Perspective on Reality

We spend so much time as a society imagining what is possible from inside the insanity and disconnection of our current moment. We spend little time in curious wonder about what’s possible if we truly believed we could change things. Usually it’s economic endeavours or other system incentives that drive what our evolution should look like.

Creating space for these truly wondrous and creative conversation, outside the confines of our existing system, seems paramount to me.

It’s why I was intrigued when I learned that someone asked ChatGPT to describe a world where the power structures are reversed.

Keep in mind, ChatGPT’s AI is not a conscious mind that simply makes things up imaginatively in the ways we do, there is programming involved. Things like how positive or negative the AI should be, what it should favor, and how humans continually respond to the AI helps it produce its responses.

Interestingly, AI is also pulling from humans in a way. By being connected to the internet, our words, language models, and ideas, it can produce responses that resemble human thinking and desire.

In some sense, it is pulling from the collective consciousness and intelligence of humanity, even if indirectly.

This is in part why ChatGPT’s answer to the question was so intriguing.

Question: ChatGPT, can you describe a world where the power structures are reversed?

Some Reflections

• AI itself is presented as a bit of a hero in this scenario. I find AI to be useful in some circumstances, but do worry about irresponsible human consciousness programming it at times.
• The nature in which ChaptGPT suggests we engage with our environment totally resonates with me.
• I think there is a deeper discussion to be had, that’s not so trendy, with regard to ‘non-binary’ and femininity etc. With a healthy nervous system and being connected to oneself, I don’t see an inherently destructive or misguided nature in males or females. I see the need for balanced leadership. Right now, a destructive culture has shaped the people who lead, whether men or women, and their behavior is not ‘natural.’ To suggest one gender or another should lead is hasty without first looking at how we’ve lost our nature.
• I love the idea of people of all ages being seen as flexible in their thinking and learning, and each being seen as having their own kind of wisdom. I’ve come across many in their 70s and 80s who are consistently expanding their mind and ideas, yet the sentiment is ‘you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.” Says who?
• On emotional intelligence, Chat brings up a huge point. Our society is largely focused on intellectual perspectives and endeavours. While intellect is one aspect of ourselves, so are our emotions, body and connection to higher self. What would our behavior and creativity look like if each of these skills and senses were developed vs. primarily just the intellect? Is intellect favored because our existing monetary system bias’ for this skill?
• Bottom line, we created this world and it’s problems. Poverty is man-made, designed into, and accepted by our existing system of capitalism and society. We can eradicate it, but collectively choose not to. Why?

An Idea

For a decade now I’ve wanted to do a study with a group of a few thousand people.

Imagine…

A brief grounding exercise brings a person into a more settled and calmer state. They are then directed to focus their attention on their heart to connect with themselves somatically.

From there instruction would be given to suspend what they believe HAS TO BE about the way our society currently operates. People are then told they can create a society they feel is possible in their heart.

They are prompted to imagine how society would be stewarded, how resources are collected and distributed, how housing might look, how food is grown, what economies might exist, how work functions, what an average day looks like etc.

The person then has the time to truly sit with each of these questions and their answers are recorded.

What would we find in these answers? Would we find that people re-create things the way they are now? Or would things be drastically different?

Would there be a ton of similarities in our visions? Perhaps many people feeling like we should not have to work so hard simply to have basic needs met in a society that has so much potential to eliminate this busy work?

If these types of conclusions did arise and represented the majority, what would that mean about why our current society is the way it is? That we are living life in ways most of us don’t want?

My gut tells me that we’d create something totally different to what we have today. And that it’s a state of stuckness, trauma, disbelief, and unconsciousness that keeps us where we are.

As a reflection, how did you react to and feel about various pieces in this essay? Did any of Chat’s answers bring about judgement? Disbelief? The feeling that “this sounds naive?”

These is wisdom in our reactions. Sometimes it can show us how our currently society has shaped our perspectives. Is there space to challenge this programming? Or are they truly accurate as they are?

________________________________________________

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.