Perspectives of AI on Psychosocial Implications of Global Modelling

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 3 Jun 2024

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Use of Facilities of ChatGPT 4 and Claude 3

Introduction

30 May 2024 – This exploration emerged from comparative use of the facilities of ChatGPT 4 and Claude 3 in summarizing the themes evoked in a set of 35 AI-related articles presented on this site over the past year (Eliciting Experimentally an Overview by AI of AI-related Articles, 2024). The summary framed the exploration there of Concluding psychosocial questions — ChatGPT versus Claude 3 and Strategic tokenism and misplaced concreteness?. This developed into a comparison of the two artificial intelligence facilities with respect to global modelling — especially from a psychosocial perspective. The extent of the responses to this distinctive focus suggested that it would be more appropriate to transfer them to this separate document where the pattern of question/responses could be further developed under more appropriate section headings.

There is considerable preoccupation with global modelling of various kinds, notably from an economic perspective (The Limits to Growth, 1972), from a climate change perspective, and most recently with respect to the pandemic. As previously noted, there is reason for concern regarding the biases in the methodologies employed (Misleading Modelling of Global Crises, 2021). A much-cited study by Gareth Morgan has drawn attention to the set of contrasting images or lenses through which social phenomena can be usefully considered (Images of Organization, 1986).

Beyond the pandemic discipline of the “one right way”, Morgan’s argument can be adapted to the framings of the crises that are the focus of modelling (Interrelating Multiple Ways of Looking at a Crisis, 2021). This offers a methodological justification for considering the “intangible” psychosocial dimensions which complement the “tangible” focus of conventional modelling. This is a process seemingly justified by the widely documented problematic strategic consequences arising from dependence on rational and quantifiable modelling — and incomprehension at their ineffectiveness. Especially intriguing is the possibility that the inadequate response to sustainable development strategies could be partially due to psychosocial factors (Recognizing the Psychosocial Boundaries of Remedial Action, 2009; Psychology of Sustainability, 2002; Evan Thompson, et al, The Blind Spot: why science cannot ignore human experience. MIT Press, 2024).

As with the earlier exercises cited, the following exploration makes extensive use of AI. Reservations regarding such use have been previously noted, both with regard to the questionable verbosity and style of responses, and what could be termed an undue degree of “algorithmic enthusiasm” for the relevance of the questions posed (Eliciting integrative insight via ChatGPT, 2024). Such enthusiasm could be readily caricatured as a form of “obsequiousness” detracting from the responses. The role of such AI facilities as an “aggregator” of non-numeric information, rather than as a “computer” of numeric data was noted.

Of particular interest however is critical assessment of the extent to which the responses frame new insights rather than a preponderance of “strategic clichés” — potentially derived from the reports of that quality which feature in many authoritative references. The intent is to “bear witness” to what is increasingly possible, even though the responses may be questionable. This applies particularly to the use of the image generation facility whose included results are primarily indicative of future possibilities rather than useful at this time.

As previously noted, a merit of this approach is that readers can explore alternative articulations by repeating (or amending) the questions to the AI facilities to which they have access — especially as those facilities become more sophisticated and have a wider access to published research. As in the papers cited, the responses of both ChatGPT are distinctively presented below in grayed areas, as with those of Claude 3.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

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.

There are no comments so far.