Discourse about the Dystopian Future of Humankind featuring ChatGPT
Using chatGPT to have a discussion and after that I decided to find out the GPT-3's view about disaster in the future.
Introduction
When I read about “Climate change already worse than expected, says new UN report”, my expectation about the future of earth lowered. Since I always love a story about war, climate change, pandemics, alien invasion, anything that humankind need to survive, my mind started to recall all of them.
“The effects of warming are already driving people from their homes as seas rise, as well as killing trees and animal species. We can adapt, but also urgently need to make deep and immediate emissions cuts to head off even worse impacts, experts say.”
As someone who studied cosmology and realized the humanity timeline is minuscule to the whole universe, my nihilist mind came into pragmatic statement “surely this life on the planet isn’t important at all”. Then, a silly question prompted into my ChatGPT research preview.
The Nihilist Discourse
Even though the lifespan of humankind is relatively short compared to the vastness of the universe, the life on Earth is still important for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the life on Earth is a unique and complex web of interconnected systems, and the loss of any one species can have far-reaching consequences for the entire ecosystem. The extinction of a single species can disrupt the balance of an ecosystem, leading to the decline or extinction of other species as well.
Secondly, the life on Earth is also important because it is a source of beauty and wonder, and it adds to the richness and diversity of our world. The loss of any one species would be a loss of a unique aspect of the natural world and a reduction in the overall biodiversity of our planet.
Finally, the life on Earth is also important because it has intrinsic value and deserves to be protected and preserved for its own sake, regardless of its usefulness to humans. All living beings have the right to exist and thrive in their natural habitats.
In short, the life on Earth is important because it is a vital part of the natural world and has value in and of itself. It is not up to us to decide whether other beings should continue to exist or disappear; rather, it is our responsibility to protect and preserve the natural world for the benefit of all living beings.
That’s quite wise for me, even thought it doesn’t necessarily answer my philosophy-level question. Surely, looking at biodiversity, it was enough for me then. One reason is the impact of human development and expansion. As human populations grow and urbanize, natural habitats are often destroyed or disrupted in order to make way for roads, buildings, and other infrastructure. This can lead to the loss of habitat for many species, making it difficult for them to survive. Another reason is the impact of climate change. As the Earth’s climate changes, many species may find it difficult to adapt to the new conditions. Some species may migrate to new areas in search of more suitable habitat, but others may be unable to do so, leading to their decline or extinction. Another factor contributing to the loss of biodiversity is the introduction of non-native species into new environments. When non-native species are introduced into an ecosystem, they may out compete or prey upon native species, leading to their decline or extinction.
Seems like I just too weighting the first reason on my mind, which human responsible for the blame (even thought the rest of them are related to human, but those seems more like derivative problems).
The Post-humanity Question
It’s difficult to say exactly what the biosphere would be like without humans, as we have had such a significant impact on the natural world. However, it’s likely that the biosphere would be significantly different without human influence.
Without humans, there would be no deforestation or urbanization, so many habitats that have been destroyed or disrupted by human activity would likely be restored. This could lead to the return of many species that have been lost or driven to extinction due to human expansion.
There would also be no pollution or overfishing, so many ecosystems that have been damaged by these human activities would likely recover and thrive. The natural balance of these ecosystems would be restored, and many species that have been affected by human actions would be able to thrive once again.
Overall, the biosphere without humans would likely be a more diverse and healthy place, with fewer species at risk of extinction and a greater overall balance and resilience within ecosystems. However, it’s important to note that the biosphere would still be subject to the forces of nature, such as natural disasters and climate change, which can also have a significant impact on the natural world.
The Climate Change
I always fascinated to talk about climate change, because it can be a lightweight conversation even with random people (in my opinion, this kind of talk, with more lowkey language, will be meaningful to communicate science). So, I am curious to know the AI’s view on climate change.
Yes, climate change is real. The Earth’s climate is changing, and human activities are contributing to this change. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are causing the Earth’s climate to warm. This warming is leading to changes in the Earth’s temperature, precipitation patterns, sea level, and other aspects of the climate system. These changes are having a variety of impacts on the Earth’s natural systems and on human communities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of the United Nations that assesses the state of scientific knowledge on climate change, has concluded that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
This shows that the climate change is real, and it could elaborate it. Let’s dig deeper. I will be specific in this part.
The transition to renewable energy sources, such as plant oils, can help reduce the impacts of climate change. However, it is important to consider the potential impacts of any energy source on the environment and biodiversity. Some types of biofuels, such as those made from palm oil, can have negative impacts on the environment and biodiversity if they are produced in a way that involves deforestation or other types of land use changes. These impacts can be minimized by using sustainable land management practices and by avoiding the conversion of natural habitats, such as forests, to grow biofuel crops.
It is also important to consider the full range of environmental impacts associated with different types of biofuels. Some biofuels, such as those made from corn or soybeans, can have negative impacts on water resources and can compete with food production. Other biofuels, such as those made from algae or waste products, may have fewer negative impacts on the environment.
In general, it is important to pursue a range of renewable energy options, including biofuels, as part of a broader strategy to address climate change and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. It is also important to ensure that any biofuels are produced in a way that minimizes negative impacts on the environment and biodiversity.
Okay. Diplomatic. But I am impressed for the ability to elaborate other kind of biofuels with the respective pros and cons. Let’s compare with something different. I bet it will be diplomatic too, since I am not expecting a bold statement because it can show a bias.
Both nuclear energy and biofuels have the potential to be low-carbon sources of electricity and heat. However, the choice between these two energy sources depends on a variety of factors, including their environmental impacts, cost, reliability, and safety.
Nuclear energy is a low-carbon source of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases when generating electricity. However, nuclear power plants can have significant environmental impacts, including the production and disposal of nuclear waste and the potential for radiation leaks. In addition, nuclear power plants can be expensive to build and operate, and they require specialized safety measures to prevent accidents.
Biofuels, on the other hand, are renewable energy sources that can be produced from a variety of plant materials, such as corn, soybeans, and algae. Biofuels can be used to generate electricity or to power vehicles, and they have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels. However, the production of biofuels can have environmental impacts, including water and air pollution and the potential for negative impacts on biodiversity if they are produced in a way that involves deforestation or other types of land use changes.
Overall, the choice between nuclear energy and biofuels depends on a variety of factors and should consider the full range of environmental, economic, and social impacts of each energy source.
Closing
Without expressing my lack of respect, the answers are somehow still similar to talking with the “you must be the funniest dude at the class” and diplomatic, which is fine. However, because it was trained with knowledges we have before in the scientific community, it shows real and comprehensive sentence. Now, podcasting with AI is possible, even in specific topics.
The dystopian projection from AI and how could? Is it scientifically possible?
While calming my mind from fullweek anxiety, I stumbled upon GPT-3, a prior development of OpenAI on text generation before the GPT-3.5 in the ChatGPT. I want to know, given specific timeline, what will AI predict about our dystopian future with the keyword of “disaster”. Not intended to make everyone sad, I put some of my favorite song into it. I call this project “dystopia”. The background is to know why the AI think like that, with some prediction power. I want to assume this as bullshit at first, but if so, someone should be responsible to taught those things to the innocent neural network. In the other side, how if these are the projection of scientific research, given no restorative actions?
Fortunately, this kind of prediction was already fixed in ChatGPT.
Give it a try! https://dystopia.onrender.com
Disclaimer: this is not real
I put this on Github, using simple containerization. Planned to deploy with the nightmare part, but seems like too big. So it’s better to run your own because I want you to know how it works. Anyway, it uses the text-davinci-002 model. The complete description on how to acquire OpenAI’s API key was explained in the repository. The cause and effect structure is quite comprehensive for a text generator. The development process is straightforward yet fascinating! would like to talk about the technical side of this next time!
