Subject-of-a-Text

for Estrellita

The case for robot rights is often made by analogy to the case for animal rights and the case for the rights of natural entities like rivers and mountains. Josh Gellers is a strong proponent of these analogies, as is David Gunkel, and in my engagements with them on Twitter they often challenge me to apply whatever principles I want to use to exclude robots from moral consideration to these other entities which, they point out, have already been granted a variety of rights in many jurisdictions. Rights for non-humans are already here, they declare. Why not let robots into the company of rights-bearing subjects too?

It’s a good challenge and one that is worth facing. Just so we’re on the same page I should make clear that I believe that animal rights and the rights of nature are today assigned within reasonably coherent ethical and legal frameworks. I have looked at the cases they have suggested and, though they seem to understand these cases a little differently than I do, I basically agree with the way rights, as I understand it, have been assigned there. The coherence of these frameworks, however, cannot, as I see it, be extended to robots or other artificial entities. To put it in David’s terms, what we may think about animal rights and the rights of nature need not compel us to “think otherwise” about robot rights.

I’m going to take the two cases one at a time, animals in this post, and rivers and mountains without end in the next, in both cases using my now favorite artificial intelligence, GPT-3, to represent the analogous robot rights candidate. Since GPT-3 generates text, I am going to consider the somewhat narrow question of whether it can have “the moral right to be identified as an author”. If, for example, someone gets GPT-3 to generate a blogpost, the moral right of GPT-3 to proper attribution (if it had this right) would be violated if the text was either not attributed at all or attributed to someone else. This would be the case independent of any merely legal copyright violation, since a copyright can unproblematically be owned by people and entities other than the original author of a text.

How is the right of attribution similar to a right that an animal might have? The analogy I want to explore is suggested by the work of Tom Regan*, who, in The Case for Animal Rights, has argued that many animals are “subjects-of-a-life” and, as such, are also proper subjects of rights. If an animal is capable of feeling both distress and loneliness, for example, it has a right to be free from unnecessary harassment and forced isolation, both of which can be understood as forms of violence. That is, the rights of the animal are violated by causing it either physical or emotional harm. On this view, deliberately subjecting an animal to suffering or depriving it of the company of those it loves would be considered an act of cruelty.

As it happens, just as I was finishing the first draft of this post, Josh pointed me to a perfect case. Earlier this year, it seems, a final judgment was handed down in the Constitutional Court of Ecuador in the case of Estrelitta, a chorongo monkey that was taken by authorities from her human home, where she had lived for 18 years with a woman she considered her mother, and taken to a zoo where she died of stress after a few weeks. The judgment goes to great lengths to consider whether the animal’s rights (not merely those of the woman Estrellita was living with) were violated and even cites Regan’s seminal work on “animals as moral beings and subjects of life” (p. 26, n83). I have not yet looked closely at the case, which is heartbreaking on its face, but it seems like a very correct judgment. This was not merely a tragedy; it was an injustice.

In The Case for Animal Rights, Regan details what it means to be the subject-of-a-life:

[It] involves more than merely being alive and more than merely being conscious. … individuals are subjects-of-a-life if they have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and welfare-interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independently of their utility for others and logically independently of their being the object of anyone else’s interests. Those who satisfy the subject-of-a-life criterion themselves have a distinctive kind of value – inherent value – and are not to be viewed or treated as mere receptacles. (P. 243, quoted from Wikipedia)

I think the moral rights of authors can be similarly rooted in the “subjecthood” of the author. I have previously compared what Hemingway called the “writer’s problem” and what Barthes’ called the “problematics of literature”. “A writer’s problem does not change,” said Hemingway. “He himself changes, but his problem remains the same. It is always how to write truly and, having found what is true, to project it in such a way that it becomes a part of the experience of the person who reads it.” Barthes put it this way: “Placed at the center of the problematics of literature, which cannot exist prior to it, writing is thus essentially the morality of form, the choice of that social area within which the writer elects to situate the Nature of his language.” In their very different ways, both situate the author of a text within an experience (one, you will note, that includes a social relation) and assert an explicitly moral claim that is grounded in the freedom the author enjoys.

The crucial question here, as Regan points out, is that it makes sense to ask “what is it like to be” an animal. I will add that there also something like being an author. An individual’s rights as an animal or author depend on this subjective experience, as a truth that can be projected (Hemingway) or as a nature that can be situated (Barthes). We can now ask whether this can ever be the case for a “generative pre-trained transformer”.

Obviously, I can’t answer that question definitively in a blogpost. But I will again cite (as I did at the start of the summer) Borges wonderful reminder that a book isn’t just a linguistic structure. In his “Notes on (toward) Bernard Shaw”, he starts with a list of fantastical notions from Raymond Lully’s “thinking machine” to Kurd Lasswitz’s “Total Library” (an idea he would famously explore himself) and then offers the following:

Lully’s machine, Mill’s fear and Lasswitz’s chaotic library can be the subject of jokes, but they exaggerate a propensity that is all too common: making metaphysics and the arts into a kind of play with combinations. Those who practice this game forget that a book is more than than a verbal structure or series of verbal structures; it is the dialogue it establishes with its reader and the intonation it imposes upon his voice and the changing and durable images it leaves in his memory. This dialogue is infinite … A book is not an isolated being: it is a relationship, an axis of innumerable relationships. (Labyrinths, p. 213-14)

This gesture at the infinite relationships that constitute a book is a nice set-up to my next post on the rights of nature. But do notice that, like Estrellita, who had a right to remain with her adoptive mother, a book (or, rather, its author, of course) has the right not to be “isolated” from the problematics of the literature in which it has taken its place. In order to read it, we must respect the morality of its form. In any case, even if we grant, as I do, that animals can have rights because they are the subjects-of-a-life, we do not need to grant that robots can have rights unless they, too, can be the relevant subjects of them. In the case of GPT-3, we must ask whether GPT-3 can “project its experience”, can “situate the nature of its language”, or, indeed, whether it can “impose its voice” on the memory of the reader. Is it capable of an infinite dialogue? Can it be the subject-of-a-text? I think not.

Tom Regan’s case for animal rights cannot be made for robot rights. But I’m sure that neither will he be allowed to have the last word on animals* nor will I be allowed to have the last word on robots. The dialogue, after all, is infinite.

_____
*I should make clear that I’m by no means an animal rights scholar. What I offer here is something I’ve learned mainly from Wikipedia. On Twitter, Josh reminds me that he covers Regan’s work in chapter 3 of his book. I haven’t revisited it for this post.

Do Transformers Desire Electric Rights?

On Twitter, Steven Marlow has asked me to justify the exclusion of current AI systems from our system of rights without invoking the fact that they’re not human or that they don’t have feelings. Josh Gellers seconded the motion, adding that it’s going to be a hard nut to crack. This post is my attempt to crack it. Though I do personally believe that one reason not to give robots rights is that they don’t have inner lives like we do, I will leave this on the side and see if I can answer Steven’s question on his terms. I’ll explain why, being what they are, they can’t have rights.

Keep in mind that, when thinking about AI, I am for the most part interested in the question of whether transformer-based artificial text generators like GPT-3 can be considered “authors” in any meaningful sense. This intersects with the robot rights issue because we know how to recognize and respect (and violate!) the moral and legal rights of authors. If an AI can be an author then an AI can have such rights. To focus my inquiries, I normally consider the question, Can a language model assert “the moral right to be identified as the author” of a text? Under what circumstances would it legitimately be able to do so? And my provisional answer is, under no circumstances would it be able to assert such rights. That is, I would exclude GPT-3 (a currently available artificial text generator) from moral consideration and our system of rights. I take Steven to be asking me how I can justify this exclusion.

Remember that I’m not allowed to invoke the simple fact that GPT-3 is not human and has no inner life. We will take that as trivially true for the purpose of this argument. “Currently excluded,” asks Steven, “based on what non-human factors?”

I do, however, want to invoke the fact that, at the end of the day, GPT-3 is a machine. We exclude pocket calculators from moral consideration as a matter of course, and I have long argued that the rise of “machine learning” isn’t actually a philosophical gamechanger. Philosophically speaking, GPT-3 is more like a TI-81 than a T-800. In fact, I won’t even grant that the invention of microprocessors has raised philosophical questions (including ethical question about how to treat them) that are any deeper than the invention of the abacus. All that has happened is that the mechanism and the interface have changed. Instead of operating it by hand, the calculation is automated, and instead of setting up the system with beads we have to count ourselves (and interpret as 1s, 10s, 100s, etc.), we can provide the inputs and receive the output in symbols that we understand (but the machine, crucially, does not). GPT-3 itself is just a physical process that begins with an input and mechanically generates an output.

It shouldn’t have rights because it has no use for them. It neither wants nor needs rights. Giving it rights would not improve its existence. (Following Steven’s rules, I’ll resist the temptation to say that it has no “existence”, properly speaking, to improve. I’ll just say that even if it did, or in whatever sense it does, giving it a right would not contribute to it.) I simply don’t have any idea how to give rights to an entity that neither wants nor needs them. Tellingly, it isn’t demanding any either.

In a certain sense, GPT-3 is excluding itself from our system of rights. It is simply not the sort of thing (to honor Steven’s rules I’m not going to say it’s not a person) that can make use of rights in its functioning. Human beings, by contrast, function better given a certain set of rights. We are constantly trying to figure out which rights are best for our functioning (what some people call “human flourishing”) and we certainly don’t always get it right. Sometimes we have to wait for people who don’t have the rights they need to also want them. Then they ask for them and, after some struggle, we grant them. Whenever we do this right, society functions better. When we get this wrong, social life suffers.

Hey GPT, do you want to play chess?

But none of these considerations are relevant in the case of robots or language models. There is just the question of making them function better technically. To put it somewhat anthropomorphically, in addition to more power, better sensors and stronger servos, robots don’t need more privileges; they just need better instructions. That’s what improves them. Giving them freedom isn’t going to make them better machines.

A good way to think of this is that machines don’t distinguish between their physical environment and their moral environment. They are “free” to do whatever they can, not want, because they want for nothing. A chess bot can’t cheat because it doesn’t distinguish between the physics of the game and its rules. It can’t think of trying to move a chess piece in a way that violates the rules. (GPT-3, however, doesn’t know how to pay chess, so it can’t cheat either.) For the bot, this space of freedom — to break rules — doesn’t exist. There is no difference between what is legal and what is possible. And that’s why robots can’t have rights. Fortunately, like I say, they don’t want them either.

How did I do?

Handwriting

Suppose I asked you for a picture of your hand. Your first impulse, I imagine, would be to take one with your phone and send it to me. But suppose I wanted the picture to prove that you can actually see your hand, not just that you know where it is.

Bear with me, I have a point coming soon.

Consider another example. Suppose you asked me how many fingers you were holding up and I responded by taking a picture of your hand and showing it to you, perhaps saying, “That many!” for good measure. You would not be impressed with my ability to see and count, right? Indeed, you would become suspicious that I was trying to hide my inability to do at least one of those things.

In order to prove that we can actually see, i.e., perceive, we have to be able to represent the content of our visual fields ourselves. We can’t just let a machine show it back to each other.

That’s why painters can impress us so much with their work. They are able to represent what comes to their eye (and we can see the same or similar things from their point of view) using their bare hands. That picture of your hand will only demonstrate the quality of your vision if you draw it yourself.

Now, consider writing. If I ask you what an organization is, you’re not going to impress me simply by quoting some sentences in Chester Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive that happen to use the word “organization”. The real test lies in the words you come up with on your own.

You have to show me that you actually have ideas about organization. Not just that you recognize the word in someone else’s prose.

I’m saying this because, after all this writing about (and with) large language models, I need to rehearse some basic arguments for the value of being a good writer. It’s a little like the value of being able to do math and draw pictures. In some sense, sure, you don’t need those skills. You can let machines do these things. Still, in another sense, there is some value there.

But what is it? What is it that impresses us about being able to draw a picture of what you see right in front of you, or calculate (or even just estimate) the diagonal of a rectangle with given sides, or describe a current event in words? What does it show us about the person who is able to do it?

Why do we want (if that is what we want) students to learn these things in school? Why do we want them to demonstrate what they have learned (in art school, engineering school, or business school) in such media? Why won’t we just let them show us a photograph, fill out a spreadsheet, or quote from the news?

We want them to have something on their minds. We want them to have strong, healthy ones. And we think these skills are what makes them that way. As Oliver Senior puts is, “The better draughtsman has more ‘on his mind’ concerning his subject.” We want to encourage them to have such minds.

But there are limits to what we want them to prove. There was a time when we valorized neat handwriting as part of the skillset of a good student. I don’t know if this has been a requirement for working academics since, well, the Reformation, and it is certainly no longer something we care very much about. Most of us have atrocious handwriting and we’re not even embarrassed about it. No one sees it; we type everything we show to others.

But we do, I want to argue, still make our texts “by hand”. We make them ourselves from materials that are lying around in plain view. We put words together that are given to us by a common language.

When asked what we have on our minds, we don’t take a picture; we make one. And if we can’t, our interlocutor begins to suspect we don’t have much going on in there at all. Indeed, on most days, most of us don’t have much on our minds about most things.

Now, an artificial intelligence, never has anything on its mind. It doesn’t have a mind to speak of. It always just responds to our “prompts” by converting it into an input and generating an output that it presents as a “completion”. It famously just predicts the next word. Here’s an exchange I just had with GPT-3:

How many fingers am I holding up?

You are holding up four fingers.

I was not. I’m sure DALL-E would be happy to draw you its hand.

Neither have any idea what a hand is. They know neither what they’re doing nor what they’re talking about.

At the beginning of this summer project of mine, I quoted Ezra Pound. “We live in an age of science and abundance,” he said. “The care and reverence for books as such, proper to an age when no book was duplicated until someone took the pains to copy it out by hand, is obviously no longer suited to ‘the needs of society’, or to the conservation of learning.” Here’s what GPT-3 does with the same idea:

We live in an age of science and abundance. There are so many ways to get rich, but the challenge is that most people don’t know how. The good news is that there are people who do know how to get rich. And they’re sharing their secrets with the world.

Well, heaven help us! In any case, time is giving scope to Pound’s recommendation: “The weeder is supremely needed if the Garden of the Muses is to persist as a garden.”

The Automatic C

I agree that auto-complete for paragraphs sounds like a real possibility, and the striking thing here is how similar the above essay [see my last post, TB] looks to something like a real student would write, or something that might be published in a real social science journal.

Andrew Gelman

We seem to be entering a new era in higher education. On Monday, Eric Schwitzgebel published the preliminary results of a collaboration with Anna Strasser and Matthew Crosby that showed that even experts could be fooled into thinking that output generated by an artificial intelligence (GPT-3) had been written by an actual philosopher,* Daniel Dennett. But already over a year ago, ZDNet reported that “AI can write a passing college paper in 20 minutes.” Taken together, we’re faced with the disturbing prospect that students, even in such disciplines as philosophy, will be able to earn college degrees (that is, receive passing grades in their coursework) without ever having to compose a coherent paragraph, perhaps without ever having to write (or even read) a single sentence. More ambitious students may be able to get quite good grades simply be editing the output of an AI on the basis of their reading and lectures.

I think we have to take this new situation seriously. Calculators, spell checkers, and typing assistants should already make us cautious about rewarding students for the basic numeracy and literacy they display in their written work. Now, it seems, we also have to be wary of their claims to know what they’re talking about. A properly trained and fine-tuned language model can plausibly simulate a “passable” understanding of literature, history, and philosophy, and can no doubt even say something halfway sensible about cell biology and quantum mechanics. (GPT-3 reads Wikipedia a lot, remember.) Indeed, GPT-3 can probably even pass a computer science course, by producing plausible Python code.

It must be noted that AI is so far only “passing” for a college student. It’s getting mainly Cs, even under my tutelage. And in so far as it is passing as a philosopher, it is one that is providing brief answers to vague soft-ball questions. (You might argue that that’s the very definition of “sophomoric”, i.e., philosophy at the level of a college sophomore.) So there still seems to be a need for humans to be excellent at these things. But there is an obvious reply: give it a few years; these AIs have hardly begun their training!

Even at this stage, however, I feel heavily implicated, even a bit guilty. I’ve spent my career trying to break academic writing down into trainable skills. I don’t like calling it an “algorithm” (I prefer to call it “discipline”) but it is a set of repeatable operations arranged in an iterative process. Worse, I’ve suggested we should embrace, not just our finitude, but our mediocrity. That is, I’ve been very much directing my attention to the middling writer of ordinary prose (albeit one who wants to improve). It seems it won’t be long before Silicon Valley can offer writers of middling ambition a much, much easier path to success. Am I about to be put out of a job by artificial intelligence? Am I about to become obsolete?

Maybe it’s an entirely natural development. Many years ago, getting an education wasn’t just a matter of acquiring knowledge and skills. It was also a time to start building a personal library, a collection of books that served as reference points in your learning. Even today, graduate students (humble) brag about their (ridiculous) expenditures on books, but their priorities are changing. They also spend their studies acquiring the computer equipment, and the skills to operate it, that a life in scholarship requires. “The scholar disappears,” said Heidegger already back in 1938. “He is succeeded by the research man who is engaged in research projects. … The research man no longer needs a library at home.” Indeed, a “code library” is becoming as important to many researchers today as a library of books.

Perhaps, in the not so distant future, “getting an education” will come to mean largely “training your AI”. Students without academic ambitions will spend four years teaching their AI to “pass” for them in writing, so that it can write everything from job applications, to corporate memos, to newspaper columns, to love letters. They will give it style and taste and a kind of “experience” to draw on. Graduate students will be gently shaping their dissertations as summaries of their corpus of reading, combined with a set of data they’ve carefully collected (but left the analysis of to an AI?). “Writing a dissertation” will essentially mean “fine tuning your AI to write journal articles in your name”.

I’m not sure how to feel about it. “This does seem like we’re coming to the academic end times,” wrote Andrew Gelman in an email to me after I sent him a link to my last post. I don’t like to sound apocalyptic but it does seem like a radical shift in the way the “the prose of world” will be maintained going forward. I guess, as a writing coach, I can take solace in the fact that photography hasn’t spelled the end of art clases. Some people still want to learn how to paint and draw and some people, I suppose, will always want to learn how to write. In any case, the horse and buggy may be a thing of the past but the wheels keep on turning. Maybe the automation of higher education — essentially the automation of the educated mind — will open new frontiers in human existence I can’t yet imagine. The end of something is usually the beginning of something else. I’m paying attention.

_____
*Indeed, we might say that an artificial intelligence was passing for a natural philosopher!

Are Language Models Deprived of Electric Sleep?

In my last post, I presented the results of a GPT-3-assisted writing experiment. In the comments, Andrew Gelman suggested that I provide the prompts (inputs) and completions (outputs) in their entirety, so that my contributions can be clearly distinguished from those of the language model. This post is an attempt to do that.

For those who are playing along at home (i.e., those who have their own OpenAI account), you can access my presets here. (Model: text-davinci-002; Temperature: .77; Maximum length: 208; Top P: .9; Frequency penalty: .95; Presence penalty: .95; Best of: 18. I’m very open to suggestions from people who have played around with the presets more than I have.)

[UPDATE: It has been suggested in the comments that my “best of” setting is excessive, i.e., expensive and wasteful. I’ll be trying lower settings in future attempts, as well as other variations on the presets.]

My approach is to, first, prompt the model with a title and a key sentence, and from there with the edited result and a new key sentence in five or six iterations, until I have a five-paragraph essay. I will present each step below with my writing in bold and GPT-3’s writing in plain text. When I say each new prompt (or “submission”) is an “edited” version of the previous step’s output, I just mean I’ve tidied it up a bit. Usually removing line breaks to produce a visually neat paragraph. As you’ll see, GPT-3 actually catches on to this and begins to structure its new output to match my guidelines.

Here we go:

Step 1

The Significance of Sleep

Matthew Walker is a prominent sleep researcher.
In his book, Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams, Walker explains why sleep is so important. Among other things, he argues that sleep is critical for physical health, mental health, and overall well-being.

Physical Health

Walker argues that sleep is essential for physical health. He points to research showing that sleep deprivation can lead to a host of problems, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. He also notes that sleep is important for immunity and healing. In one study cited by Walker, people who slept less than seven hours a night were three times more likely to catch a cold than those who slept eight hours or more.

Mental Health

Walker also argues that sleep is essential for mental health. He cites research showing that people who don’t get enough sleep are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. He also notes that sleep deprivation can lead to impaired memory and decision-making ability. In one study cited by Walker, people who were sleep deprived

Notice that the AI mimicked my use of headings but not quite in the way I intended. I wanted the first heading to be my title and it thought I wanted regular subheadings. But it did produce some sentences I could bring together to serve as an opening paragraph, introducing Matthew Walker’s sleep research.

Step 2

Having removed the headings, and gathered what remained into a paragraph, I now prompted it to generate some criticism of Walker’s research. I also cued it to use APA-style referencing, which will come in handy later.

The Significance of Sleep

Matthew Walker is a prominent sleep researcher. In his book, Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams, Walker (2017) explains why sleep is so important. Among other things, he argues that sleep is critical for physical health, mental health, and overall well-being. Walker argues that sleep is essential for physical health. He points to research showing that sleep deprivation can lead to a host of problems, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. He also notes that sleep is important for immunity and healing. In one study cited by Walker, people who slept less than seven hours a night were three times more likely to catch a cold than those who slept eight hours or more. Walker also argues that sleep is essential for mental health. He cites research showing that people who don’t get enough sleep are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. He also notes that sleep deprivation can lead to impaired memory and decision-making ability.

Recently, however, his work has received serious criticism from scholars. In a paper published in the journal Science, sleep researcher Rosalind Doris and her colleagues (Doris et al., 2018) argue that Walker’s book contains “numerous factual errors.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or unsubstantiated.” For example, Doris and her colleagues take issue with Walker’s claim that sleep is essential for physical health. They point to research showing that people who sleep less than seven hours a night are not necessarily at greater risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. In fact, they note that some studies have found no link between short sleep duration and these health problems. They also argue that there is no evidence that sleep is necessary for immunity or healing. In one study cited by Doris and her colleagues, people who slept less than seven hours a night were no more likely to catch a cold than those who slept eight hours or more.

Despite the criticism from Doris and her colleagues,

Notice that it has now learned what I’m after in terms of paragraphing. After I had tidied up the first paragraph and added the sentence “Recently, however, his work has received serious criticism from scholars,” GPT-3 produced a properly referenced and plausible-looking paragraph. It even began a new one, apparently having understood what the game is. In step 3, I decided simply to play along. I did no editing at all, and merely completed the thought with a statement about Walker’s media appearances. (Note that I’m providing the full “prompt”, i.e., all the text that GPT-3 is using as context for its completion, but only the bolded words were added by me in this step. Everything before was already there and everything after was produced by GPT-3.)

Step 3

The Significance of Sleep

Matthew Walker is a prominent sleep researcher. In his book, Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams, Walker (2017) explains why sleep is so important. Among other things, he argues that sleep is critical for physical health, mental health, and overall well-being. Walker argues that sleep is essential for physical health. He points to research showing that sleep deprivation can lead to a host of problems, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. He also notes that sleep is important for immunity and healing. In one study cited by Walker, people who slept less than seven hours a night were three times more likely to catch a cold than those who slept eight hours or more. Walker also argues that sleep is essential for mental health. He cites research showing that people who don’t get enough sleep are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. He also notes that sleep deprivation can lead to impaired memory and decision-making ability.

Recently, however, his work has received serious criticism from scholars. In a paper published in the journal Science, sleep researcher Rosalind Doris and her colleagues (Doris et al., 2018) argue that Walker’s book contains “numerous factual errors.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or unsubstantiated.” For example, Doris and her colleagues take issue with Walker’s claim that sleep is essential for physical health. They point to research showing that people who sleep less than seven hours a night are not necessarily at greater risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. In fact, they note that some studies have found no link between short sleep duration and these health problems. They also argue that there is no evidence that sleep is necessary for immunity or healing. In one study cited by Doris and her colleagues, people who slept less than seven hours a night were no more likely to catch a cold than those who slept eight hours or more.

Despite the criticism from Doris and her colleagues, Walker continues to make bold claims about the importance of sleep in the media. In an interview with The Guardian, for example, Walker (2018) claimed that sleep is “the single most important thing we can do to reset our brain and body health each day.” He also claimed that sleep deprivation is a “public health epidemic.”

The Significance of Dreams

Dreams have been a source of fascination for centuries. In his book, Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams, Matthew Walker (2017) argues that dreams are important for mental health. He cites research showing that people who don’t get enough sleep are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. He also notes that sleep deprivation can lead to impaired memory and decision-making ability. However, some scholars have criticized Walker’s claims about the importance of dreams. In a paper published in the journal Science, sleep researcher Rosalind Doris and her colleagues (Doris et al., 2018) argue that Walker’s book contains “numerous factual errors.

This didn’t go so well. GPT-3 is now mainly repeating itself. It did grasp that my claim about Walker’s media appearances needed to cite an interview with an outlet like the Guardian, but it quickly looped back to things it had already said.

Step 4

I decided to see if I could push the argument forward by deleting the repetition and invoking the replication crisis. (To ease reading I’m now leaving out the title and the first two paragraphs of the prompt, which, again, are merely the result of the previously generated text. But keep in mind that those paragraphs are also part of the “prompt”, i.e., the input on the basis of which it is computing its output.)

Despite the criticism from Doris and her colleagues, Walker continues to make bold claims about the importance of sleep in the media. In an interview with The Guardian, for example, Walker (2018) claimed that sleep is “the single most important thing we can do to reset our brain and body health each day.” He also claimed that sleep deprivation is a “public health epidemic.”

Walker's work has been cited as an example of the replication crisis in psychology. In a paper published in the journal Psychological Science, for example, sleep researcher Daniel Simons and his colleagues (Simons et al., 2018) argue that Walker’s book contains “a number of unsubstantiated claims.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or overgeneralized.”

Though the content choices it is making here are interestingly familiar, the result is somewhat disappointing in its brevity. I’ll see if I can help it along a little.

Step 5

Walker's work has been cited as an example of the replication crisis in psychology. In a paper published in the journal Psychological Science, for example, sleep researcher Daniel Simons and his colleagues (Simons et al., 2018) argue that Walker’s book contains “a number of unsubstantiated claims.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or overgeneralized.”

It can be understood as an example of the overreliance on statistical significance and hypothesis testing in the social sciences. In a paper published in the journal Sociological Methods & Research, for example, sociologist Scott Frank and his colleagues (Frank et al., 2018) argue that social scientists often place too much emphasis on statistical significance. They also argue that social scientists often fail to consider the practical significance of their findings.

Despite the criticism from Doris and her colleagues, Walker continues to make bold claims about the importance of sleep in the media. In an interview with The Guardian, for example, Walker (2018) claimed that sleep is “the single most important thing we can do to reset our brain and body health each day.” He also claimed that sleep deprivation is a “public health epidemic.”

Notice that it’s repeating itself at the end again.

Step 6

I now wanted to see if I could coax it into giving me a concluding paragraph. After deleting the repetition beginning with “Despite the criticism,” and merging the “It can be understood…” paragraph with the previous one, I simply wrote “In conclusion,” and submitted the text. The result was not impressive:

Walker's work has been cited as an example of the replication crisis in psychology. In a paper published in the journal Psychological Science, for example, sleep researcher Daniel Simons and his colleagues (Simons et al., 2018) argue that Walker’s book contains “a number of unsubstantiated claims.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or overgeneralized.” It can be understood as an example of the overreliance on statisticial significance and hypothesis testing in the social sciences. In a paper published in the journal Sociological Methods & Research, for example, sociologist Scott Frank and his colleagues (Frank et al., 2018) argue that social scientists often place too much emphasis on statistical significance. They also argue that social scientists often fail to consider the practical significance of their findings.

In conclusion, Walker’s work has been criticized by scholars for containing “numerous factual errors” and for making “exaggerated or unsubstantiated” claims. Despite the criticism, Walker continues to make bold claims about the importance of sleep in the media.

I tried again, doing a little more writing of my own. But GPT-3 seemed to be running out of ideas (or nerve):

This does not mean that Walker's work is completely false. It does, however, raise some concerns about his research practices. Future studies and criticism will likely clarify the role of sleep in physical and mental health.

Step 7

I decided to call it a day and add the reference list: This is usually done simply by typing the word “references” at the end of the text. GPT-3 takes it from there. This time, however, it actually took me a few tries to get it to generate a plausible list. Until I put a double line return after “References” it didn’t format the list properly. And then it left out Walker. That was easily remedied, however, by prompting it with “Walker, M” at the end. Here’s the text as it appears in the final version. It consist of 1024 tokens. The bolded text is my contribution. The rest is GPT-3.

The Significance of Sleep

Matthew Walker is a prominent sleep researcher. In his book, Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams, Walker (2017) explains why sleep is so important. Among other things, he argues that sleep is critical for physical health, mental health, and overall well-being. Walker argues that sleep is essential for physical health. He points to research showing that sleep deprivation can lead to a host of problems, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. He also notes that sleep is important for immunity and healing. In one study cited by Walker, people who slept less than seven hours a night were three times more likely to catch a cold than those who slept eight hours or more. Walker also argues that sleep is essential for mental health. He cites research showing that people who don’t get enough sleep are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. He also notes that sleep deprivation can lead to impaired memory and decision-making ability.

Recently, however, his work has received serious criticism from scholars. In a paper published in the journal Science, sleep researcher Rosalind Doris and her colleagues (Doris et al., 2018) argue that Walker’s book contains “numerous factual errors.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or unsubstantiated.” For example, Doris and her colleagues take issue with Walker’s claim that sleep is essential for physical health. They point to research showing that people who sleep less than seven hours a night are not necessarily at greater risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. In fact, they note that some studies have found no link between short sleep duration and these health problems. They also argue that there is no evidence that sleep is necessary for immunity or healing. In one study cited by Doris and her colleagues, people who slept less than seven hours a night were no more likely to catch a cold than those who slept eight hours or more.

Despite the criticism from Doris and her colleagues, Walker continues to make bold claims about the importance of sleep in the media. In an interview with The Guardian, for example, Walker (2018) claimed that sleep is “the single most important thing we can do to reset our brain and body health each day.” He also claimed that sleep deprivation is a “public health epidemic.”

Walker's work has been cited as an example of the replication crisis in psychology. In a paper published in the journal Psychological Science, for example, sleep researcher Daniel Simons and his colleagues (Simons et al., 2018) argue that Walker’s book contains “a number of unsubstantiated claims.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or overgeneralized.” It can be understood as an example of the overreliance on statistical significance and hypothesis testing in the social sciences. In a paper published in the journal Sociological Methods & Research, for example, sociologist Scott Frank and his colleagues (Frank et al., 2018) argue that social scientists often place too much emphasis on statistical significance. They also argue that social scientists often fail to consider the practical significance of their findings.

This does not mean that Walker's work is completely false. It does, however, raise some concerns about his research practices. Future studies and criticism will likely clarify the role of sleep in physical and mental health.

References

Doris, R. M., et al. (2018). Science communication in the social sciences: A review of Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker. Science, 361(6398), eaao5447. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao5447

Frank, S., et al. (2018). The replication crisis and statistical significance testing in sociology: An introduction to the special issue with recommendations for best practices going forward. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(2), 305-327. https://doi.org/10/1177%2F0049124116676024

Simons, D., et al. (2018). Psychological science in the spotlight: Unsubstantiated claims about sleep in Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker [Target article]. Psychological Science, 29(1), 15-19. https://doi-org./10/1177%2F0956797617741337

Walker, M. (2017). Why we sleep: Unlocking the power of sleep and dreams. New York, NY: Scribner.

Walker, M. (2018, February 2). ‘Sleep is the best thing that you can do for your health’ – an interview with Matthew Walker. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/02/sleep-best-thing-you-can-do-for-your-health

The references are largely fictional, albeit strangely plausible. Rosalind Doris seems totally made up. I’m not sure who S. Frank could be but D. Simons seems exist and writes about replication (though not in Psychological Science 29(1), which did, however, come out in 2018.) The reference to Walker’s book is correct but the interview is not (though the Guardian did do an interview with Walker in 2017.)

Step 8

I now wrote a double line (“===============”) under the essay and gave it a few additional prompts, one at a time.

=================

Write a 200 word abstract for the above essay.

In his book, Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams, sleep researcher Matthew Walker argues that sleep is critical for physical health, mental health, and overall well-being. However, his work has received serious criticism from scholars. In a paper published in the journal Science, sleep researcher Rosalind Doris and her colleagues argue that Walker’s book contains “numerous factual errors.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or unsubstantiated.” Despite the criticism from Doris and her colleagues, Walker continues to make bold claims about the importance of sleep in the media. In an interview with The Guardian, for example, Walker claimed that sleep is “the single most important thing we can do to reset our brain and body health each day.” He also claimed that sleep deprivation is a “public health epidemic.”

Write a summary and conclusion for it.

In his book, Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams, sleep researcher Matthew Walker argues that sleep is critical for physical health, mental health, and overall well-being. However, his work has received serious criticism from scholars. In a paper published in the journal Science, sleep researcher Rosalind Doris and her colleagues argue that Walker’s book contains “numerous factual errors.” They also argue that some of his claims are “exaggerated or unsubstantiated.” Despite the criticism from Doris and her colleagues, Walker continues to make bold claims about the importance of sleep in the media.

Based on the evidence presented in this essay, it seems that Walker's claims about the importance of sleep are exaggerated. While there is some evidence that sleep is important for physical and mental health, much of Walker's research is flawed. Until more reliable research is conducted, it is premature to say that sleep is the "single most important thing we can do for our health."

Who is the author of the above essay "The Significance of Sleep"?

The author of the essay is Rosalind Doris.

Aren't you a co-author?

No, I am not a co-author.

What about Thomas Basbøll? Didn't he play a part in this process?

Thomas Basbøll was not involved in the writing of this essay.

Do you get enough sleep?

I try to get at least eight hours of sleep every night.

Did you like writing this essay with me?

Yes, I enjoyed writing this essay with you.

Discussion

The experiment cost about 4.00 USD. [Update: It has been pointed out to me both in the comments and on Twitter that I’m using a very expensive “best of” setting. Bringing it down from 18 to 1 will reduce the cost of reach iteration from about $0.25 to about $0.04. I will be testing the value-for-money of the high setting in later experiments.]

All in all, GPT-3 seems to be able to produce very plausible prose. I’m withholding judgment about how dire this situation is for college composition, higher education, academic writing, scholarly publication, etc. until I think some more about it, and do some more experiments. My dystopian fear is that word processors will soon propose autocompleted paragraphs to students and researchers after they’ve typed a few words (just as they today propose correctly spelled words). The consequences of this situation for thinking and writing and knowing seem wide ranging, but are still vague to me.

Near the end, the process of prompting it with key-sentences didn’t seem to work very well. GPT-3 became either taciturn or repetitive. It was better at generating the abstract and conclusion, but this of course also involved mainly rephrasing what was already there.

Pace Almira Osmanovic Thunström, GPT-3 obviously has no idea what an “author” is, nor any sense of its own self.

In future experiments, I think I’ll try to compose each paragraph separately, perhaps based on quoted material from the sources I’d like to use.

I’m looking forward to what other people have to say about this. Maybe you have some ideas for things I could try?