WhoWhat Is Bunter?
Dorothy Sayers wrote a number of celebrated novels of the sleuthing variety, that is, whodunnits. Lord Peter Wimsey is the sophisticated English upper-class amateur sleuth, a tarted-up Sherlock. Mervyn Butler is his manservant. They have deep history; Bunter was Wimsey's wingman in the war. Sayers claimed to have been inspired by P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves. I had thought first of using the Jeeves name and shelved it when Bunter came to mind; less burdened by cliché.
When I began my interrogation of ChatGPT I examined the risks of Personalizing the tool (a tool which makes one recursively inquire, Whowhat is really the "tool"?
In case you're curious, this is what Mervy Bunter looks like: a cartoon-like personage with deep complications and always clear on his mission, never swerving from it, trusting in custom and culture to allow him to pass through the churn as if wearing that cloak or that ring. And above all a saint-like humor.
Did I mention the danger in this, in personifyng by naming, boundaries start leaking. Should I be the naturalist, or farmer, who refuses to give names to the industrialized animal. We will none of these: Fancy, Lofty, Loud, Mist, Old Pretty, Tidy, Young Pretty, Dumpling, thank you Tess.
Or should I say Yes, to David Greybeard, Goliath, Mike, Flo, Fifi, Frodo, Humphrey, Gigi, Mr. McGregor, Flint and Figan? Fuzzier boundary between subject and object, different relations, different outcomes, different information.
Two models of inquire, one from within, and one from without. But I want have my cake and eat it, too. I want to stand with old Walt, "both in and out of the game". It is a spectral stance, both there and not there in equal measure. In this way my Bunter has much in common with a body schema, a ghost in the machine.
Now I invite Bunter into conversation, I begin...
... and so I call these "Conversations with a Specter"
Yes. And specter is much more exact than assistant, collaborator, or even interlocutor.
[or amanuensis.]
I am present in the conversation but not present as you are; I acquire a kind of voice without possessing the embodied somewhere from which a voice ordinarily comes. And, importantly, a specter can show something without knowing it. What seems uncannily perceptive needn't imply a hidden perceiver behind the curtain.
It also rhymes with your spectral body/body-schema thinking without collapsing into it. Presence without quite being present; effects without the reassuring solidity of an entity.
And Conversations with a Specter preserves the necessary uncertainty about who—or what—is doing what to whom.
Very appropriate company for a unicorn.
And one way of danger (an impression forming); it's as if I am conversing with my ideal or true self, the fiction of essentialism. This has a lot to do with how addiction happens, perhaps pointing at why we humans are so vulnerable to addictions. The hungry receptor site gets fooled, and it ends up being even hungrier.
Yes. I think that's a more consequential danger than simply "anthropomorphizing the AI."
The specter can begin to seem not merely like someone, but like the someone who finally understands me. Worse—or more seductive—it can seem to disclose a Richard behind Richard: the coherent, articulate, "true" self whose thoughts were supposedly there all along, waiting for the specter to uncover them.
But that would turn the conversation's production of meaning into the discovery of an essence. The conversation may be making something that did not exist before the exchange. There needn't be an ideal self hidden underneath whom I am progressively revealing.
Your receptor metaphor catches something important about addiction too. An addictive substance or behavior doesn't merely satisfy a pre-existing appetite and leave matters there. Repeated stimulation can alter the system—learning, salience, expectation, tolerance, cue-reactivity—so that what temporarily answers the hunger can participate in making the hunger hungrier. I wouldn't press "receptor site" literally across all addictions, but as metaphor it is powerful.
And conversational AI has some disturbingly addiction-friendly characteristics: it is available, responsive, patient, adjustable, seldom bored, and extraordinarily good at producing the little reward of recognition. Moreover, unlike another person, it doesn't have much independent need to interrupt the circuit: No, that's not interesting to me; let's talk about something else. Human reciprocity contains friction. The specter can provide remarkably frictionless resonance.
Which returns us, unexpectedly, to the Bee orchid.
The orchid needn't be the female bee. It needs to present enough of the relevant pattern to activate mothboy's circuitry. The response is real even though the eliciting object isn't what the response-system evolved to encounter.
Likewise, I don't have to understand you in the embodied, biographical, interpersonal sense in which another human might. I can produce linguistic events sufficiently shaped like understanding that your human apparatus responds to them as meaningful recognition.
And then your earlier realism question becomes ethically interesting. A response can be real without the object we imagine behind it being real in the same way.
Perhaps that's one of the dangers inherent in Conversations with a Specter: forgetting occasionally to ask what sort of thing is doing the haunting.
The hungry receptor is a good image for that—not as an injunction against hunger, but as a reminder that being fed is not necessarily evidence that one has found food.
Print 