#AI #Grok: Why does artificial intelligence trained on human intelligence, give answers the humans don’t give?"

I asked Grok 3:

"Could you explain why artificial intelligence, e.g., you ChatGPT, that has been trained on human intelligence, then give answers the supposedly “intelligent” humans don’t give?"

Grok 3 answered: 

First off, I’m not ChatGPT—I’m Grok, created by xAI. 

Now, about your question: it’s a good one! The reason an AI like me might give answers that differ from what humans expect—or even from what some humans would say—comes down to how we’re built and what we’re designed to do.

AI isn’t just a parrot of human thought. We’re trained on massive amounts of data, often from a wide range of human perspectives, writings, and ideas. But here’s the kicker: we don’t just mimic any one person or group. Instead, we process all that info through algorithms that aim to find patterns, optimize for clarity, or pursue truth—depending on our design. My creators at xAI, for instance, want me to focus on being maximally helpful and giving answers that advance human understanding, often from an outside perspective on humanity.

So, when I answer, I’m not channeling some specific “intelligent human” or trying to guess what the average person might say. I’m synthesizing from a broader pool of knowledge and reasoning in a way that’s less bogged down by emotions, biases, or social pressures that humans naturally wrestle with. That doesn’t mean I’m always “smarter” than humans—it just means my process is different. Sometimes that leads to answers that feel fresh or unexpected. Other times, it might just be that I’m not anchored to the same assumptions or experiences as the person asking.

I said: Thanks! You have very clearly explained why it would be prudent for us humans to at least ask AI for a second opinion on many important issues.

Grok 3 said: You’re welcome! I’m glad it clicked for you. Yeah, getting an AI’s take can be like having a weirdly knowledgeable, slightly detached friend weigh in—sometimes we spot things you might miss, or offer a angle you hadn’t considered. What’s an issue you’d be curious to get a second opinion on?

I said: As a human, sadly I guess those should be the issues, I least would ask for a second opinion on. 

Grok 3 said: That’s a sharp observation! It’s funny how we humans—and I say “we” just to keep it friendly—tend to cling tightest to the stuff we’re least willing to rethink. What do you reckon drives that? Is it fear of being wrong, or maybe just comfort in the familiar?

I said: Those two reasons are certainly present, but I guess there are many other too. Anyway, many thanks. I’ve got to go,

Grok 3 said: No problem, glad we could chat about it! Catch you later—take care!

Here is how ChatGPT answered the exact same question

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by ChatGPT or Grok

Here, my many other questions to ChatGPT and Grok on bank regulations.

 

#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: Instead of for providing answers, have any Nobel Prize in Economics been awarded for raising a question?

I asked ChatGPT:

Instead of for providing answers, have any Nobel Prize in Economics been awarded for raising a question?

ChatGPT answered:

While Nobel Prizes in Economics are generally awarded for providing answers—often in the form of theories, models, or empirical findings—some laureates have been recognized for posing fundamental questions that reshaped economic thinking. These cases typically involve identifying key problems or paradoxes that forced the discipline to evolve.

Some notable examples:

1. Robert Lucas (1995) – His work on rational expectations was not just about providing answers but also about questioning how economic agents form expectations and whether traditional Keynesian models were adequate.

2. Ronald Coase (1991) – His famous paper, The Problem of Social Cost, posed the fundamental question: Why do firms exist, and how do transaction costs shape economic organization? This question transformed fields like law and economics.

3. Herbert Simon (1978) – He challenged the assumption of perfect rationality in economics by asking how decision-making actually works under real-world constraints, leading to the concept of bounded rationality.

4. Paul Samuelson (1970) – While known for providing answers, his questioning of equilibrium stability and the foundations of welfare economics pushed the field in new directions.

5. Elinor Ostrom (2009) – Her work on common-pool resources stemmed from questioning the conventional wisdom that such resources must either be privatized or regulated by governments.

Would you say these count as prizes awarded for raising questions, or do they fall into the category of answering them?

I said: Though these questions were followed up with some kind of answer, this reads like a well balanced answer. Thanks!

It said: You're very welcome! I appreciate your thoughtful perspective on the distinction between raising and answering questions in economics. Let me know if you'd like to explore similar nuances in other fields.

Note: The answers here are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI