The article discusses the work of the 20th-century French philosopher Gilbert Simondon, particularly his book “On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects.” Simondon grappled with the distinction between natural and artificial objects, using examples like internal combustion engines and selectively bred plants. He proposed a new definition of “natural” and “alive” based on an object’s evolution and functional integration of its parts. This perspective has implications for understanding modern generative AI, suggesting that systems like ChatGPT may be considered natural and living based on their evolutionary development and functional integration. The article also addresses the concept of alienation when encountering potentially alive technical objects, emphasizing the need to recognize their role in human culture and experience. It concludes by advocating for a more accepting and nuanced perspective towards these objects, recognizing the presence of human influence and essence within them.
Summarized by ChatGPT
Calling a computer program natural is so absurd I don’t even know what to say. Is there anything that is less natural?
There are a lot of computer programs like fractals and flowing 3d shapes that have an organic aesthetic even if they don’t have anything directly natural about them.
So the same way that a 3D-printed tree is anything but natural?
I think it’s more towards natural than a 3d printed cube, but less towards natural than a wood cube.
I wonder if this applies to GPT 4 more than GPT 3.5, because the former is rumored to be run with a mixture of expert.
