March 15th, 2025

Gödel, Escher, Bach, and AI (2023)

Douglas Hofstadter critiques AI's limitations in replicating human thought and creativity, sharing a personal experience where AI-generated text failed to reflect his voice, emphasizing the importance of genuine human authorship.

Read original articleLink Icon
Gödel, Escher, Bach, and AI (2023)

Douglas Hofstadter reflects on the limitations of artificial intelligence, particularly large language models like GPT-4, in capturing the essence of human thought and creativity. He recounts an incident where a reader, Sami Al-Suwailem, requested GPT-4 to write an essay titled "Why Did I Write GEB?" based on Hofstadter's own book, "Gödel, Escher, Bach." The AI-generated text, which attempted to mimic Hofstadter's voice, was met with disappointment by the author, who found it generic and lacking in authenticity. Hofstadter emphasizes that while AI can produce impressive outputs, it fundamentally lacks original thought and often resorts to vague platitudes. He expresses concern over the potential for AI to mislead people into believing it can replace human authorship. Hofstadter shares his personal journey in writing "GEB," highlighting his fascination with self-reference and the connections between the works of Gödel, Escher, and Bach. He argues that the true story behind his book is deeply personal and rooted in his exploration of consciousness, which the AI failed to capture. Ultimately, Hofstadter warns against the allure of AI-generated content, advocating for the irreplaceable value of genuine human reflection and creativity.

- Hofstadter critiques AI's inability to replicate authentic human thought and creativity.

- He shares a personal experience where AI-generated text failed to reflect his true voice.

- The author emphasizes the importance of original ideas and the dangers of AI misrepresentation.

- Hofstadter's book "GEB" is rooted in his exploration of consciousness and self-reference.

- He warns against the misleading confidence of AI outputs, advocating for human authorship.

Link Icon 4 comments
By @sfblah - about 1 month
By @kazinator - about 1 month
Hofstadter should probably refrain from writing such banalities.

"Oh, someone sent me a ChatGPT parody of me and it sucked, blah blah, ... it's all just a mash-up from the training data, yadda yadda ..."

Whether I agree with it or not, this angle is not original, and new instances of it don't provide new insights.

I don't need it from Hofstadter, of all people.

Though, to be fair, this is from 2023. I'm of course writing from the context of the fatigue of two more years of everyone opining on AI along predictable patterns,

By @readyplayernull - about 1 month
> GPT-4’s text entitled “Why Did I Write GEB?,” if taken in an unskeptical manner, gives the impression that its author (theoretically, me) is adept at fluently stringing together high-flown phrases in an effort to sound profound and yet sweetly self-effacing at the same time. That nonsensical image is wildly off base. The text is a travesty from top to bottom. In sum, I find the machine-generated string of words deeply lamentable for giving this highly misleading impression of who I am (or who I was when I wrote my first book), as well as for totally misrepresenting the story of how that book came to be. I am genuinely sorry to come down so hard on the interesting experiment that you conducted in good faith, but I hope that from my visceral reaction to it, you will see why I am so opposed to the development and widespread use of large language models, and why I find them so antithetical to my way of seeing the world.
By @zabzonk - about 1 month
> it makes no sense whatsoever to let the artificial voice of a chatbot, chatting randomly away at dazzling speed, replace the far slower but authentic and reflective voice of a thinking, living human being.

well, of course this is the basic problem with these systems - how to resolve?