Note: If you didn’t read the last post, please read that first. This is 100% based on it, and it has spoilers. Read it here: Chat GPT or Me?
Here’s what happened with my little experiment.
What I did was this. I had ChatGPT write a poem, in my style, about the same topic.
Then I posted both the AI-generated poem and my own, without giving away which one is which.
It’s a test of discernment.
So what happened?
The Guesses
Here’s a summary of what people guessed.
6 people guessed that Poem B was mine
1 person guessed that Poem A was mine
The Answer?
What’s the answer, you ask?
Poem B was written by me.
Poem A was written by Chat GPT.
This means the vast majority of people guessed right.
But something interesting came up…
A Surprising Twist
I didn’t expect this to arise out of this experiment.
Most people correctly guessed the poem I wrote.
BUT… They couldn’t really explain why.
Here are some comments I received via email:
“I guess B. For reasons, to me, will never be clear. So we shall see.”
“I think you wrote B but I don't know why…”
“It's just the vibes I'm getting and the second Poem had a lot of reflection in it which is more your style than not.”
What does this mean?
It hints at the ineffability of intuition.
Intuition > Analysis
We all get these feelings, these senses, these knowing that oftentimes can’t be explained.
They transcend rational understanding and explanation. And it’s accurate too.
This is intuition.
Now, intuition isn’t the instinctual “pre-rationality” that animals have. This is “post-rationality.” It’s beyond logic and transcends the capacity of the analytical mind.
Here’s where it comes full circle.
The intuitive hunches described in people’s guesses exemplifies the qualities that differentiate humans from artificial intelligence.
It also connects to a whole suite of qualities that make us uniquely human: meaning-making, creativity, spontaneity, imagination, etc. To some degree, intuition encompasses all of these.
The funny thing about intuition is that, because it transcends logic, it’s difficult to confine within the paradigm of analysis. This is why strictly analytical people have such a hard time with intuition, or think it’s made up.
It's like trying to fit a cube (a three-dimensional shape) into a square (a two-dimensional shape). They exist on different planes. And the higher expression can only be glimpsed on the plane of the lower expression — not fully seen.
It seems like there’s so much to our inherent potential as humans that we haven’t even scratched the surface on.
To blow your mind even more, I’ll sum up something my friend Justin Faerman explored beautifully in a draft of his research paper: ACCESSING SUPERCONSCIOUSNESS: THE QUANTUM ORIGINS AND PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANICS OF INTUITION
Neuroscientists estimate that our conscious minds (also known as Type 2 ‘sequential’ thinking in dual process theory) can process about 10,000 bits of data per second.
Our subconscious minds (Type 1 ‘parallel’ processing/thinking), on the other hand, can process about 65,000,000,000 bits of data per second—a 6,500,000x increase in power.
What Justin calls Type 3 thinking (aka intuition)—which bridges our body, mind and brain into the quantum domain, is10,000x the number above, which is 650,000,000,000,000 bits of data per second (and it could potentially be even more than this).
Note: I can’t validate the above number for Type 3 thinking, since this is leading edge research. However, if you’ve ever really tapped into your intuition, you know you’re processing an incredible amount of quantum data that your analytical mind can’t even fathom.
Essentially, intuition accesses the quantum realm. The sheer amount of quantum data can’t be processed by the conscious mind, let alone rationalized or explained.
(I’m doing my best to simply point towards it here lol.)
If our intuition can access 650,000,000,000,000+ bits of data per second (or even anywhere in the ballpark of that), from the quantum domain, then can AI — which only draws upon language and numbers — ever compete with that?
We (as humans) are already advanced (organic) tech. We just don’t quite know how to use it yet (or perhaps we’ve forgotten).
Well, that turned into a nice lil tangent, huh?
Until next time…
Much love,
Stephen Parato
That's interesting. I thought B because A was too traditional; too much Keats and Shelley sort of thing and the explanation was also classical and "political correct" sounding, if you understand what I mean. It felt more imitation as opposed to creation.