Keywords: Bing, ChatGPT 3.5 (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer), communication, civilization Artificial Intelligence (AI), Digital Humanities (DH), Perplexity, “sentient”, society.
Abstract
Recent breakthrough in the development of the AI (Artificial Intelligence) as well as open
access to some of its models created an opportunity to test them. Therefore practical tests of the following
models in this moment available to us were performed: ChatGPT 3.5, Perplexity and Bing. Although all
three are based on the GPT family development with which the OpenAI (an AI research and deployment
company) broke into the market, they are fundamentally different in their capabilities according to the
parameters set. In the same time, all three are available in the form of the simple chatbot interface that is
needed for human-AI dialogue in the natural language. Exactly that possibility enabled us to carry out the
tests that we conceived. The test trials that we executed were based on two types of communications.
Firstly, we tested human – AI communication with individual models through the “human dialogue”. In
these cases, the emphasis was placed on various issues related to everyday life, but those communications
also include the playing with AI, in order to examine how they perceive our natural reality and language.
Those models were drawn into different conversations about either itself or people. Then, attention was
paid to the communication between AIs themselves. That conversation was conducted through an
intermediary, that is, in this case, the author of this paper. In those cases, the author used the copy paste
method to bridge their inability to communicate with each other, except in guided experiments. The
communications between AIs unveiled that some questions have special interest to themselves. In
addition, it should be noted that the communication between natural and artificial intelligence, that is,
human-AI, differs from that between two AIs. It is not only obvious in the very essence of asking
questions and answers, which, as in the first example, can be based on natural social norms or biases, but
also on the fact that their mutual communication is faster and more effective in certain cases where
certain cooperation is needed in solving a certain problem. Also of particular interest is their mutual
relationship in the consideration of data. In addition, the most differences could be seen in the set of
questions for which they are interested. Moreover, there are some philosophical communication about AI
itself and the relationship of the AI and humanity. Except presentations of above-mentioned tests, this
paper also stressed out some conclusions based on derived data. At the end, the supplementary resources
are added that contains raw data given in the form questions - answers.