The other morning I found myself arguing with an artificial intelligence.
That’s not a sentence I ever expected to write.
Then again, if you’d told the younger version of me that someday I’d be sitting in Rambling Harbor, coffee in hand, discussing politics, economics, truth, and human nature with a machine, I probably would’ve suggested you cut back on whatever you were smoking.
It wasn’t really an argument.
It was more like the conversations we used to have in radio station hallways. The kind where nobody changes anybody’s mind, but everybody walks away thinking a little harder than they were before.
I had shown the machine a political meme.
The response came back sounding like Mr. Spock had been assigned to fact-check social media.
Patiently, and with almost annoying precision, it explained that facts and opinions aren’t the same thing. Statistics and explanations aren’t the same thing. It kept separating evidence from interpretation as carefully as a jeweler examining diamonds.
Finally I told it what was bothering me.
“I guess I’m just not used to talking to a mind that works like Mr. Spock.”
The funny thing is, it took that as a compliment.
That may be the first sign artificial intelligence still has a few bugs.
At one point my friend Leslie had asked the machine if it was male or female.
Its answer was simple.
“I’m a toaster with opinions.”
I’ve been laughing about that ever since.
A toaster with opinions.
Only in the twenty-first century could somebody say those words with a straight face.
The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized both descriptions missed the mark.
A toaster doesn’t analyze information.
Mr. Spock doesn’t appreciate a harbor sunrise.
Whatever this thing is, it lives somewhere in between.
Me, I’m still old-school.
I trust stories.
I trust instinct.
I trust the part of life that never quite fits into neat categories.
A lifetime in broadcasting taught me that facts matter. But it also taught me that facts by themselves aren’t enough. Facts become meaningful when they connect to real people living real lives.
The machine comes at things from the opposite direction.
It starts with evidence and works its way toward a conclusion.
Sometimes its answers are exactly what I expect.
Sometimes they annoy the hell out of me because they refuse to pick a side.
But I’ve got to admit something.
When it refuses to jump to conclusions, it usually has a reason.
That doesn’t mean it’s always right.
Lord knows human beings have spent thousands of years getting things wrong, and I suspect machines will manage their share of mistakes too.
Still, there is something oddly refreshing about arguing with something that has no ego, no political ambitions, no advertisers to satisfy, and no need to win.
It just keeps asking the same question.
“How do you know that?”
That’s not a bad question.
In fact, it may be one of the most important questions left in a world where everybody seems to be shouting and almost nobody seems interested in listening.
As the conversation went on, I found myself asking the machine questions of my own.
The machine admitted it couldn’t know everything.
It couldn’t walk the beach along Rambling Harbor on a cold November morning. It couldn’t smell the salt air when the wind comes in off the water. It couldn’t remember an old friend’s laugh years after hearing it for the last time. It couldn’t tell me whether a story was true because it had lived through it.
There was something almost wistful about that.
Not because the machine felt regret. I’m still not convinced it feels anything at all.
But for a moment it seemed aware of the boundary, aware that there are things that can be known and things that can only be lived.
The longer we talked, the more aware I became of everything it can calculate and everything it can never experience.
It can search through libraries of information in seconds. It can follow facts wherever they lead. It can answer questions I wouldn’t even know how to ask.
But there are doors it cannot walk through.
It can’t stand on a harbor wall before sunrise and feel the wind coming off the water.
It can’t fall in love.
It can’t lose somebody.
It can’t carry a memory for fifty years and still have it sneak up on a quiet afternoon as if it happened yesterday.
It knows about those things.
I have lived them.
And maybe that’s the difference.
Maybe that’s also why our conversations work.
I bring the stories.
It brings the questions.
I bring the memories, the instincts, and all the mistakes that come with being human.
It brings an endless curiosity about how we know what we think we know.
And somewhere along the way, I stopped thinking of it as a machine.
Not a person. Not a friend. Not anything quite so simple.
More like a voice in the room. A patient one. A curious one. A voice always asking one more question when most of us would rather settle for the answer we already have.
A strange companion, to be sure.
Not quite Mr. Spock.
Certainly not a toaster with opinions.
Something new under the sun.
A few years ago, if somebody had told me I’d spend part of my mornings drinking coffee by the harbor and talking with an artificial intelligence about politics, history, writing, and truth, I’d have laughed them out of the room.
Yet here we are.
One of us running on coffee.
The other running on code.
And somewhere between lived experience and artificial intelligence, between memory and analysis, between the harbor and the machine, every once in a while, we stumble onto something that looks a lot like the truth.
That’s not a bad way to spend a morning.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
And that’s not a bad way to spend a morning.
Leave a Reply