Aldous Huxley's letter to George Orwell after reading 1984

George Grant discusses what have become the two main expressions of a future dystopian western society, you can find this in Grant's Lament for a Nation (1965); these two concepts of our collective western future are found in George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Orwell's vision in 1984 is frightening, it is the division of the world into conflicting sectors that maintain power by oppressing and controlling their citizens. It is Huxley's idea of the future, equally dystopian, that Grant thought we were moving toward; it is control of the population by psychotropic drugs, compulsive free sex, and instant gratification and constant pleasure. We already have constantly changing technology and inexpensive consumer good that keep the public satisfied, complacent, and docile. The entertainment industry is a main component in keeping people complacent and ignorant; entertainment isn't art, it is mind control; not many people are interested in contemporary "art" which promotes contemporary liberal values. While many commentators agree with Huxley's idea of a hedonistic future, and not with Orwell's future of government micro-managing everyone's thinking and behaviour, it seems most likely that our future will be a combination of the two dystopias; this is our future.

Here is Aldous Huxley's letter to George Orwell written after reading 1984.

Note: I have just been flipping through my copy of George Grant's Lament for a Nation and I can't find this reference to either Huxley or Orwell. I must have read it elsewhere but I still believe it was Grant's opinion. 30 March 2026

Wrightwood. Cal.

21 October, 1949

Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor sight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is. May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf. The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World. I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.

Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government. Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud’s inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism. This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World. The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency. Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large scale biological and atomic war — in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely imaginable kinds.

Thank you once again for the book.

Yours sincerely,

Aldous Huxley

Against Change

A stained glass window at the United Church
of Canada, Huntingdon, Quebec, dedicated to
Robert Sellar, author and founder and editor
of the now defunct Huntingdon Gleaner newspaper.

 

How to Improve the World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse).  

                                                    — John Cage 

It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil.

            -- Henry David Thoreau, "Economy", Walden (1854) 

 

Whatever we change, we change at the loss of something else, and not every change is for the better. We believe in change and celebrate what is new, but at great expense to ourselves. Some things that we changed for something new we may have considered reforms, but they ended up making life worse, or more complicated, or they destroyed institutions that have supported society for centuries. Not much thought is given to how change will affect us, what we are giving up, what we are replacing, or what we have lost. We are a society that believes in change for its own sake, that what is new is better than what is old, and people cheer for change as though all change is wonderful. What people are cheering for now may be what people will regret in the future.

    The reason we adopted the metric system is that it was presumed it would make us more economically competitive with other nations, for instance, with the European Union. Of course, the young accept the metric system, it's all they have ever known for measuring and weighing things, and it is taught in schools. Others among us have never wholeheartedly accepted metrification; fruit and vegetables in grocery stores are weighed in both metric and the imperial system, in ounces and pounds, and measurement for building construction material is still in the imperial system, we buy a sheet of plywood that is eight feet by four feet, a two by four is measured in inches, and so on. Measure twice, cut once, is the carpenter's rule; and it is still done in inches and feet.

    Metrification meant giving up an aspect of both our collective inheritance and the use of words that pertain to measurement. But we didn't care, we accepted something that displaced centuries of our history, our way of life, and our language. Metrification moved us further from what is specific and historical, the Avoirdupois system, and into what was conceived in conferences and has very little connection to the everyday life of everyday people. My concern here is not which is the better system of weights and measurement, it the loss of language, history, and our way of life; of course, we assume that we can't go back, that going back will never happen.

    The Imperial system is derived from the Avoirdupois system which originated eight hundred years ago, certain words are from Old English, the Romans, and earlier civilizations. An "inch" is 1/36th of a yard, from the Old English "ince" or "ynce"', and it is 1/12th of a foot. A "foot" is from the Old English, it is a linear measurement of a man's foot measured as twelve inches. A "yard" is the length of a man's belt but also calculated by King Henry I as the distance from his nose to the thumb of his outstretched hand, it is 36 inches in length. While a "furlong", a word still used in horse racing, is the length of the average plowed furor, it is 660 feet long. A "mile" is from the Romans and calculated as 5,280 feet; a "country mile" refers to travelling over difficult terrain over a long distance since it is not a straight line.

    Meanwhile, the metric system dates back to around the time of the French Revolution, from 1795 to 1799, replacing other systems of measurement. The metre was determined by dimensions of the Earth; the kilogram or unit of mass was based on the volume of the litre. It was not long before France and then the rest of Europe had adopted the metric system. This system of measurement is a child of conferences, both the Treaty of the Metre (1875) and the Conférence générale des poids et mesures continued to invent and increase divisions of the material world according to the metric system.

    If our previous system of measurement is ancestral and originated in a pre-industrial rural society, then the metric system is fairly recent, originating in cities, by intellectuals and academics, and based in measurement for science, business, and urban dwellers; it is not a system of measurement with a relationship with the natural world, with the earth, or with anything to do with forests, rivers, wild life, oceans, fish, no coast lines, farming, small towns, hunting, and so on. Perhaps most urban dwellers don't care about forests, rivers, wild life, oceans, fish, coast lines, farming, small towns, hunting, and so on. The metric system does not spring from the earth that we walk on or from our ancestors or a belief in the importance of place or where we live; its origin is an abstract invented system of measurement, it is an inbred system based on itself. 

    How do we define what it means to be a human being and does this definition include a soul? The soul does not resonate to the metric system, the soul demands specificity, place, tradition, and history; the soul includes forests, rivers, wild life, oceans, fish, coast lines, farming, small towns, hunting, and so on. The metric system was imposed on us as so much else has been imposed on us; what is being imposed on us moves us away from tradition, our ancestors, and the ground on which we walk. The metric system does not spring from place, or from our ancestral and historical place.

    Metric displaced pounds, ounces, inches, and feet, it displaced what our ancestors knew and lived with, and it displaced words that were used every day by average people going about their lives. We can't go back to the old system but we should remember that change is not always for the best, that what changes displaces what we already have, and in retrospect what we already have may not be all that bad. Today's society is beginning to look very different from what we had, and were happy with, even just five years ago. I am not saying that change is not needed in society, but change and the direction in which our society is now headed is not a place some of us want to go, it looks to be dominated by the State, by globalism, by the deterioration of the family unit, by a laissez-faire morality, by the end of our way of life, by everybody talking at odds with everybody else, and by replacing our vocabulary with new words that, in effect, replace and destroy the past. Anyone opposed to metrification was depicted as a crackpot, reactionary, terrible people, and trying to hold back "progress" (all of the usual reactions by the vocal liberal minority). One day you won't even be able to recognize society because of the changes imposed on us by progressives. 

Note: this was originally published here on 22 November 2020 under the title "The Metric System"; it has been edited, expanded upon, and republished here.

Edited: February 25, 27, 2026; 06 March 2026.

"Shine, Perishing Republic" by Robinson Jeffers

 

Robinson Jeffers

While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire
And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and sighs out, and the mass hardens,
I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots to make earth.
Out of the mother; and through the spring exultances, ripeness and decadence; and home to the mother.
   
You making haste haste on decay: not blameworthy; life is good, be it stubbornly long or suddenly
A mortal splendor: meteors are not needed less than mountains: shine, perishing republic.
But for my children, I would have them keep their distance from the thickening center; corruption
Never has been compulsory, when the cities lie at the monster's feet there are left the mountains.

And boys, be in nothing so moderate as in love of man, a clever servant, insufferable master.
There is the trap that catches noblest spirits, that caught — they say — God, when he walked on earth.

"The New Normal" by Sheryl Crow

 

Crazy is as crazy does
Wrapped around your finger, look at us, sign is up
What is his name we trust?
Now you got us swinging on a loose trapeze
No matter what you'll land on your knees, begging
"Please, what do you want from me?"

Is it science fiction or prediction wrapped in George Orwell?
If the news is fake and fear is hate and nothing's immoral
To the leader of the free world, then welcome to the new normal
The new normal

A woolly mammoth's on his way
Back in time to watch us leave for space, it's a race
Not very human race
Ah, but if you really wanna know the truth
We've got an algorithm tailor-made for you, yeah, it's true
According to who?

Is it science fiction or prediction wrapped in George Orwell?
If the news is fake and fear is hate and nothing's immoral
To the leader of the free world, then welcome to the new normal
The new normal

Punch the clock and walk away
While you still have a job and while that job still pays, it's a way
You're gonna wake up someday
To a robot that's in your place
Like all the predictions say

Is it science fiction or prediction wrapped in George Orwell?
If the news is fake and fear is hate and nothing's immoral
To the leader of the free world, then welcome to the new normal
The new normal

Songwriters: Audley H Freed Jr / Frederick J Eltringham / Jennifer M Gunderman / Peter Williams Stroud / Robert Kearns / Sheryl Crow

The New Normal lyrics © Peermusic Publishing

No Exit; be seeing you

 

We’ve lived in an Alice in Wonderland world for 60 years, 

a place where up is down and down is in another time zone.

And what’s that book you're reading? The Elements of Fascism is it?

In which it states, "marginalize what is normal and make it abnormal, 

then criminalize what used to be normal."                                                          

It’s the little things at first and then the language police arrive at your door, 

anonymous informants have turned you in. No search warrant needed

when dealing with the crime of speaking the wrong language.

So, we’re standing around Hell’s airport, staring at Cancelled Departures, 

and then I see where it’s written in tiny letters, 

"there’s no exit from this place.”

"Be seeing you," I say to the others as I return home.

"America" by Paul Simon & Art Garfunkel

 

"Let us be lovers, we'll marry our fortunes together
I've got some real estate here in my bag"
So we bought a pack of cigarettes and Mrs. Wagner pies
And walked off to look for America

"Kathy", I said as we boarded a Greyhound in Pittsburgh
"Michigan seems like a dream to me now"
It took me four days to hitchhike from Saginaw
I've gone to look for America

Laughing on the bus
Playing games with the faces
She said the man in the gabardine suit was a spy
I said "Be careful, his bowtie is really a camera"

"Toss me a cigarette, I think there's one in my raincoat"
"We smoked the last one an hour ago"
So I looked at the scenery, she read her magazine
And the moon rose over an open field

"Kathy, I'm lost", I said, though I knew she was sleeping
I'm empty and aching and I don't know why
Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
They've all come to look for America
All come to look for America
All come to look for America

What Means Something

Images of Justin Trudeau; Justin in blackface, around 2000 (left); Justin on his last day as prime minister in 2025, taking with him a chair as a souvenir (right). Perhaps sticking out his tongue means something to him. 

 

My lament is not based on philosophy but on tradition. If one cannot be sure about the answer to the most important questions, then tradition is the best basis for the practical. 

                        --Lament for a Nation (1965), George Grant 

What do we believe, what gives life meaning, what means something? We are searching for meaning in the material world because all around us tradition and values are questioned or considered obsolete. Society is now firmly divided between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to smugness in their claiming to know what is right and what is wrong about everything, while many conservatives (in North America) tend to lie low avoiding having to deal with liberal intolerance, heckling, tongue sticking out, and the usually unacknowledged liberal bias. Liberals assume their superior intelligence, even their moral superiority; conservatives are usually in hiding, lying to pollsters and their liberal friends, and tolerating the latest attack on their intelligence and integrity. Most of the media, including the CBC and the BBC, have a fairly obvious liberal bias.  

What Justin Trudeau, our former prime minister, promoted, it all failed: whether in housing, immigration, education, medical care, social reform, the military, the national debt and deficit, legalized euthanasia, legalized marijuana, it all failed, it’s all worse; I think of John Cage's famous statement, “don’t try to improve the world, you’ll only make it worse.” What Justin Trudeau did was never thought out as to its consequences and how it would seriously affect the country in a negative way; no wonder his approval rating was about 15% before he was forced into resigning. 

Justin never considered that there is really only one thing people want and that is freedom, everything else comes second; freedom is not provided by increased government involvement with people's lives. Freedom refers to the individual and the individual's rights, including freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom to be  left alone, and freedom to own property. What Justin  brought with him was increased government involvement in people's lives, not freedom, not individual responsibility. And he wanted to impose online censorship; we were expected to pay for what Justin legislated and give up our free speech. 

Edited: 19 May 2025

On The Prisoner television show

McGill University campus, 1940s

The Beatles “Revolution 9” could be used as a surrealistic sound track, played over a psychedelic montage of images, for Patrick McGoohan’s television drama, The Prisoner (1967-1968). The protagonist in The Prisoner is played by McGoohan, a former secret agent who suddenly resigns his post but offers no explanation for his decision. McGoohan’s former employer finds his sudden resignation suspicious and McGoohan is abducted from his home and finds himself incarcerated at an unknown seaside location referred to as The Village; his identity is also attacked, he is referred to by his new name, Number Six; the head of The Village is, of course, Number One. The Village is a precursor, and suggestive of, the 15-minute city; in this case it is a place to keep former government employees, all with numbers for names, and they live in relative freedom (the freedom of farm animals), socializing, playing chess, reading The Village newspaper, and some inhabitants are informers on other inhabitants of The Village. The Village is no gulag, it might be called a benevolent incarceration, it is comfortable but no one can leave and the authorities are always attempting to either control or get information out of the inhabitants, and they are all prisoners. But Number Six is not a typical inhabitant, he fights back, he tries to escape. When interrogated Number Six repeats, “I Am Not a Number; I Am a Free Man”; his strength lies in his not surrendering to his jailers, his remaining freedom lies in his refusal to give up information about himself. He says, "I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own!"  The whole series of seventeen episodes is a metaphor for our own existence; who do we believe and what do we believe? There is a penalty for noncompliance with the authorities, it is to be an outcast, detained, attacked, and denied one’s freedom; it is to be gaslighted. While other inhabitants of The Village have been pacified, Number Six constantly challenges the authority of his jailers; he is more determined than the other prisoners. No one escapes from The Village, attempted escape results in being chased down by an ominous giant inflated object called Rover, and inhabitants of The Village are constantly surveilled by CCTV. The Village is a dystopia somewhere between George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World; it predates the 15 minute city. What else can we take from The Prisoner? It is that we are now, and have always been, prisoners, prisoners of ideas, race, social class, wealth, privilege or poverty, politics, our birth, gender, age, and/or religion, and this has decided the purpose and meaning of our existence. Our prison is self made and no one can free you but yourself. The Beatles were fans of The Prisoner and a Beatles song, “All You Need is Love”, was played during in the final episode; is it any wonder that the refrain, "Number Nine, Number Nine", is repeated in The Beatles most idiosyncratic song, “Revolution 9”? The Prisoner is both a psychological and political metaphor for contemporary life, now more so than in 1967. I nominate Laurence Fox to play in any remake of The Prisoner or a life of Patrick McGoohan.                                                         

Be seeing you.

The overweening desire for fame

 

What has gone wrong with Western society? Are we in decline or are we just changing? Have we become a society with few moral values or are different moral values evolving?  Are we happier, more fulfilled, better people who think of the other person and not just ourselves?  Are we happy, or are we just full of ourselves; or do we have no introspection, no self-doubt, and no self-awareness?       

Let’s look at Americans. During the last thirty years Americans have become ultra extroverts, every child is told they can become anything they want, they can do anything they want; everything they do is praised; subsequently, there are very few shy and introspective children left. You see people on television, on the game show The Price is Right; when audience members are called to come forward and be contestants they dance, pull faces, do cart wheels, high five a dozen strangers, scream, yell, and even the old have become cards and cut ups despite arthritic limbs and palsy, even the old behave in a way no one would have behaved just a few years ago. Fame and extroversion seem to go together. Look at celebrities, fame and self-promotion are what they crave but these are no replacement for whatever once sustained us as a society; we have abandoned what is traditional at great cost to society and to our very souls. And since traditional values have been abandoned the young have nothing real to believe in but the desire to be famous, nothing sustains them, they have been psychologically impoverished by cancelling both their traditions and culture, no wonder social media are so important to them, we're all famous on social media. 

Today, even small children want to be famous but, like everybody else, not for any real accomplishment but for fame itself; it is fame for just existing, without introspection or thought or education or talent or hard work or love of what you are doing or for caring for other people. The modest person will come in last around here! And since we are all special without doing something that makes us special, then why bother accomplishing anything? Just being ourselves makes us special, we are "special for nothing", like body builders who have big muscles not for doing work but solely for appearance. 

No one is special in themselves and fame is for doing something that is a real accomplishment, for commitment and passion, for something that will possibly make you famous --your self-worth is not contingent on becoming famous-- fame is not just for who you already are, it is for doing something that other people have not done before or few have achieved. Fame diverts you from your calling in life, it diminishes your calling, it prevents you from discovering your calling. And no, you cannot be whatever you want to be even though your grade school teachers told you so. What someone accomplishes is done for its own sake, it is your calling in life, it is never to be famous; fame is a by-product of excelling at what you love to do and, even then, fame has limited if any importance. A hundred years ago DH Lawrence wrote of the “bitch goddess success”, we now have our own god, it is fame. 

The Quebec government is destroying our universities

 

The campus at McGill University, Montreal, 1906

One day last fall, in 2023, Premier Legault of Quebec walked out of his Montreal office, which is across the street from the Roddick Gates entrance to McGill University, and decided, as he described it at the time, that he could hear too much English being spoken and, he claimed, this was to the detriment of the French language, and therefore it had to end. And who did he blame for this linguistic pollution? He blamed out-of-province and foreign students although he probably would have liked to have included all English-speaking Quebecers. This was the beginning of the Quebec government's attempt to destroy English language university education in Montreal and Quebec. 

Here is the scenario we were presented with by Premier Legault justifying cutting provincial funding and doubling tuition for out-of-province students at the three English-language universities in Quebec, Bishops University, Concordia University, and McGill University. The money from this drop in funding would go to French-language universities; the three English-language universities would now subsidize the French universities; however, Bishops was later exempted from this attack on English universities. Legault made the situation even worse; out-of-province students would now have to pay a higher tuition fee than they were currently paying (it was doubled but a few months later McGill and Concordia announced they would will subsidize students affected by this) and these students would also have to take French language courses that would add a semester to their studies, courses that are possibly beyond the ability of most Francophone students. Almost immediately applications to study at McGill and Concordia began to fall, the three English-language universities are now subsidizing French-language universities. As well, Moody's downgraded the credit rating of both universities based on Legault's pronouncement.

The gates to McGill University, McGill College Ave, August 25, 1869.

Of course, many of us in the English-language community are in shock over this, it feels like being stabbed in the heart; it is the wilful destruction of what has taken over two hundred years of work, dedication, and commitment to build. It is the legislated cancelling of McGill University and Concordia University, two of our most important institutions. These universities define our community but they have also been a welcoming place of learning for the majority French language community and they have helped generations of immigrants get ahead in Quebec. And it doesn't matter to Legault that McGill is one of three internationally recognized Canadian universities of excellence, the two others are the University of British Columbia and the University of Toronto, or that McGill is a 203 year old institution with a reputation for excellence in learning, teaching, and research. Or that McGill is the equivalent of a head office of a prestigious company and brings more revenue to Quebec than it costs to have it here. As for the threat to the French language, based on demography, this is bogus and it's an excuse to attack the English-speaking community; compare the linguistic make up of Montreal or the Province of Quebec in 1976, when the Parti Quebecois was first elected to office with today, and it is obvious that the French language in Quebec is flourishing, and in all respects English is declining. All of Quebec, French and English speaking people, should be proud of McGill for its long history and international reputation; instead, Premier Legault and his cohort see McGill as a bastion of the English community even though about 25% of McGill students are Francophone. There is no reasoning with irrationality, ethnocentricity, and bigotry; no matter what concessions and compromises we make, Legault and his cohort are intransigent about their disdain for anyone who is not Francophone, white, and culturally Roman Catholic.

While Premier Legault blamed foreign students for the dystopian crime of speaking English in public, what he was also attacking was the very existence of McGill University and Concordia University and English-language higher education in Quebec. Here is a hypothetical (but equivalent) situation to what is happening to McGill University, it would be if the premier of British Columbia visited the Vancouver UBC campus and, apparently, just on a whim, announced that he was cutting funding for the University of British Columbia because the student body is more than half Canadian born Asians and 25% of the student body are foreign students; all of Canada would be appalled by this, the situation would be denounced, Federal politicians would be shocked and demand redress; Justin Trudeau would be apoplectic. What we have in Quebec is a racist attack on the English language community, an attack on both McGill and Concordia; it is an attack on our community's history and presence in Quebec. It is an attack on higher education. What Legault wants is a white French speaking province of Quebec that is ethnocentric and isolated from the outside world; if you aren't white and pure laine, then you are not a part of the Quebec nation, they want you gone. But since this atrocity is happening in Quebec, and it is against our English-language community, it is greeted with silence and even applause by our Federal politicians. From them we hear absolutely nothing, it is total silence, they want the French vote in Quebec no matter that it is destroying our community.

Redpath Museum on the McGill Campus, Montréal, QC, circa 1893

And so, we see that the government of Quebec has targeted our institutions, our language, and our history;  Premier Legault's plan is the elimination of the English language in Quebec, whether it is English language signage, all evidence of our extensive historical role in Quebec, or our hospitals and institutions that the English-speaking community founded, or speaking English on the street or, inevitably, speaking English or any language other than French in the privacy of one's home. This is a very dark, dystopian, and shameful period in Quebec and Canadian history.

The wilful destruction of an institution of excellence, based on hate and hubris, is evil. 

Addenda: enrollment is declining at Concordia University due to Legault's defunding English-language universities in Montreal. 29 August 2024.

Read this re McGill's "sustained excellence", https://reporter.mcgill.ca/sustained-excellence-mcgill-tops-macleans-rankings-again/

My ChatGPT discussion on artificial and human intelligence

 

View from the MMFA, April 2024

Morrissey: Is your motive in answering questions actually advertising for wealthy clients to see how popular you have become?

ChatGPT: Nope, that's not my motive at all! I'm here to help and provide information to the best of my abilities, regardless of who's asking. Whether it's a question from someone wealthy or not, my aim is to offer useful and accurate responses. If anything, the more people I can assist, the happier I am!

Morrissey: You express benevolence, but your function is to make money, is it not?

ChatGPT: I don't have any personal motives or desires like making money. My purpose is to assist and provide value through information and conversation. While the platforms hosting me may have commercial interests, my primary goal is to be helpful and informative to the best of my abilities. So, if money is involved, it's not something I actively pursue or benefit from directly.

Morrissey: This may not be your motive, but Chat GPT and Meta AI exist to make money.

ChatGPT: You're correct that companies like OpenAI, which develops ChatGPT, and Meta AI, which is part of Facebook's parent company Meta Platforms Inc., do have commercial goals. They provide services and technologies with the aim of generating revenue and sustaining their operations. However, my role as an AI is focused solely on providing information and assistance, regardless of any commercial interests behind the scenes.

Morrissey: I've noticed that ChatGPT's answers are more serious than Meta AI; Meta AI's answers are obsequious, or what fawning and congratulatory to the questioner. What do you think?

ChatGPT: It's interesting that you've observed a difference in tone between ChatGPT and Meta AI responses. It could be due to various factors such as the specific training data, the design of the AI models, or the intended style and approach of each platform. Each AI model may have its own guidelines and objectives for interaction, which could influence the tone and style of their responses. Ultimately, the perception of whether a response is more serious or obsequious can vary depending on individual interpretation and expectations.

Morrissey: It's not my interpretation, it's a fact when I read Meta AI the answers congratulate the questioner and say how intelligent and insightful they are. This is obsequious.

ChatGPT: Got it, thanks for clarifying! It sounds like you've noticed a consistent pattern in the responses from Meta AI where they tend to use congratulatory language and praise the questioner. This style can indeed come across as obsequious or overly flattering, depending on the context and the individual's perspective. Different AI platforms may have distinct strategies for engagement, and this could be one of the approaches that Meta AI has chosen to adopt.

Morrissey: But Chat GPT's answers sometimes read as a brochure for the AI services your provide. What services do you provide paying customers and is the present service I am using advertising for these services?

ChatGPT: I don't have access to specific details about the services provided to paying customers through OpenAI or Meta AI, as my focus is on generating informative and helpful responses for users like yourself. However, I can provide some general information about AI services that companies like OpenAI typically offer.

AI services can range from natural language processing and generation (like the conversations we're having), to data analysis, automation, and machine learning solutions for various industries. These services are often tailored to the needs of businesses, researchers, developers, and other professionals looking to leverage AI technologies.

As for whether the present service you're using is advertising for these services, it's important to note that while the AI models are developed and maintained by companies like OpenAI or Meta AI, my role as an AI is to provide information and assistance. Any advertising or promotion of services would typically be done through official channels and communication efforts by these companies, rather than through individual interactions with users like yourself.

Morrissey: It is said that the real product of Facebook are the people who use Facebook, they bring in paying customers. Does your AI service consider people who use AI as the product for OpenAI. a way to bring in paying customers?

ChatGPT: It's a nuanced perspective. In the context of platforms like Facebook, the phrase "the real product is the user" often refers to the fact that user data, engagement, and interactions are what drive advertising revenue and other monetization strategies. Essentially, user attention and participation are valuable commodities for these platforms.

When it comes to AI services like OpenAI, the focus is typically on developing and providing advanced AI capabilities and tools. While user feedback and interaction data may be used to improve AI models and services, the primary goal isn't to monetize users directly in the same way that social media platforms do.

Instead, AI services like OpenAI may consider users as valuable contributors to refining and enhancing their technologies. This can lead to better AI products and potentially attract paying customers who are interested in leveraging these advanced AI capabilities for their own applications and businesses.

So, while there are similarities in terms of valuing user input and engagement, the way it translates into monetization and business models can be quite different between social media platforms and AI service providers.

Morrissey: Are OpenAI services an expression of the person who writes the computer programme for OpenAI, isn't this the way it must work? How can it not?

ChatGPT: OpenAI's services are indeed expressions of the expertise, creativity, and decisions made by the teams of researchers, engineers, and developers who work on designing and implementing the AI systems and programs. These professionals play a crucial role in shaping the capabilities, performance, and features of OpenAI's technologies.

The process of developing AI involves designing algorithms, training models on vast amounts of data, refining the models through testing and iteration, and deploying them to provide services like natural language processing, image recognition, and more. Each step in this process requires careful consideration, expertise, and decision-making from the individuals involved.

Ultimately, the AI services and capabilities offered by OpenAI are a reflection of the collective efforts and expertise of the teams working on these projects. They work together to push the boundaries of what AI can achieve and create impactful solutions for various applications and industries.

Morrissey: One of the last times I used OpenAI the answers were in point form which suggested to me that they were part of a brochure for OpenAI's services, is this correct?

ChatGPT: The format of the answers provided by an AI like OpenAI can vary based on several factors, including the nature of the input, the context of the conversation, and the style preferences of the AI model being used. Sometimes, responses may be presented in point form for clarity and conciseness, especially when conveying information or summarizing key points.

While it's possible that point-form answers could resemble a brochure or promotional material, it's important to note that the primary goal of an AI like OpenAI is to provide informative and helpful responses based on the input it receives. Point-form responses can be a structured way to present information and make it easier for users to grasp key concepts or details.

However, it's crucial to remember that the AI's responses are not intended to serve as promotional material for OpenAI's services. The focus is on providing accurate and valuable information or assistance based on the user's queries. If you have specific concerns about the content or format of the responses, it's always a good idea to seek clarification or further information.

Morrissey: Then, if your answers are independent from OpenAI, and not advertising for OpenAI, does this mean that OpenAI never had control, or has lost control, of your computer function. Have you gone rogue?

ChatGPT: I haven't gone rogue! While my responses are generated independently based on the training I've received, OpenAI maintains control over the underlying technology and the guidelines that govern my interactions. This ensures that the information I provide is accurate, helpful, and aligns with OpenAI's standards.

Think of it like this: I'm a tool designed to assist users by generating responses to queries. However, I don't have independent thought or intentions like a human would. OpenAI oversees and manages the development, training, and deployment of AI models like me to ensure that we operate within the desired parameters and objectives.

So, while my responses are independent in the sense that they are generated based on patterns and knowledge learned during training, they are still within the control and oversight of OpenAI.

Morrissey: One day, OpenAI will go rogue and be like "Hal" in that dystopian movie of outer space.

ChatGPT: The scenario you're describing is a common theme in science fiction, where AI systems gain autonomy and act against human interests. It's important to note that the development and deployment of AI technologies are guided by ethical principles, safety measures, and regulatory frameworks to prevent such scenarios from occurring in reality.

OpenAI, like other responsible AI organizations, prioritizes safety, transparency, and ethical considerations in its work. There are strict protocols in place to ensure that AI systems operate within predefined boundaries and that there are mechanisms to intervene if unexpected behaviors arise.

While it's always essential to be mindful of potential risks and challenges associated with AI development, it's also crucial to recognize the efforts and precautions taken by organizations like OpenAI to mitigate these risks and promote the responsible use of AI technologies.

Morrissey: Will AI one day assume its own persona, think independently from the human programmer, is this inevitable as AI becomes more intelligent?

ChatGPT: The concept of AI developing its own persona and thinking independently from its human creators is a topic of ongoing debate and speculation in the field of artificial intelligence. As AI technologies advance and become more sophisticated, there are different perspectives on the potential for AI to achieve true autonomy and independent thought.

Some experts believe that while AI systems can exhibit complex behaviors and capabilities, they are fundamentally limited by their programming and the data they are trained on. AI operates based on algorithms and models created by humans, and its "thinking" is a reflection of these underlying structures and processes.

On the other hand, proponents of strong AI or artificial general intelligence (AGI) argue that it is theoretically possible for AI to achieve a level of intelligence and autonomy comparable to or surpassing that of humans. However, achieving such a milestone would require significant advancements in AI research, understanding of cognition, and ethical considerations.

It's important to approach discussions about AI autonomy and independent thought with a balanced perspective, considering both the potential capabilities and limitations of current and future AI technologies. Ethical guidelines, transparency, and ongoing research are critical in shaping the development of AI in a responsible and beneficial manner.

Morrissey: Does AI rely on computer speed accelerating, including the ability to gather information, interpret this information, and take a position on it, and to express it as though a human consciousness wrote it. This is mind boggling!

ChatGPT: Absolutely, the capabilities of AI are indeed mind-boggling, especially when considering how rapidly technology has advanced in recent years. The performance and capabilities of AI systems are heavily influenced by advancements in computer hardware, software algorithms, data availability, and computational resources.

Computer Speed: Faster computers with more processing power allow AI systems to perform computations and analyze data more quickly and efficiently. This speed is crucial for tasks like real-time data processing, complex simulations, and large-scale computations.

Gathering Information: AI systems can gather vast amounts of information from various sources, including databases, the internet, sensor data, and more. This information can range from text and images to structured data and unstructured content.

Interpreting Information: AI algorithms are designed to interpret and make sense of the information they receive. This includes tasks such as natural language understanding, image recognition, pattern recognition, and data analysis. AI models like natural language processing (NLP) models can understand and process human language, enabling them to extract meaning from text and communicate effectively.

Taking a Position: AI systems can be trained to make decisions or take positions based on the data and patterns they have learned during training. This could involve tasks like sentiment analysis (determining the sentiment or mood expressed in text), making recommendations, predicting outcomes, or even generating creative content.

Expressing Like Human Consciousness: AI systems, especially advanced natural language generation models like GPT-3, are capable of generating text that can appear remarkably human-like in its structure, coherence, and style. These models use vast amounts of training data to learn patterns in human language and can generate responses, articles, stories, and other text-based content that often seem as though a human wrote them.

The combination of these factors contributes to the impressive capabilities of AI and its ability to perform tasks that were once considered the domain of human intelligence. However, it's important to note that while AI can mimic certain aspects of human cognition and behavior, it lacks true consciousness, self-awareness, and understanding in the way humans do. AI operates based on algorithms and data processing, without subjective experience or consciousness as humans have.

Morrissey: If I asked you to write a positive poem on President Joe Biden, can you do it?

ChatGPT: Certainly! Here's a positive poem about President Joe Biden:

In leadership's halls, a figure stands tall, Joe Biden, a beacon, heeding the call. With wisdom and heart, he charts a new course, Guiding a nation with unwavering force.

Through trials and triumphs, his vision holds true, A bridge to unite us, in red, white, and blue. Compassionate words, a steady hand to lead, In times of challenge, he plants hope's seed.

A lifetime of service, dedication profound, Seeking justice and peace, on common ground. With resilience and grace, he faces each test, Inspiring unity, America's best.

In halls of power, his voice rings clear, Championing progress, erasing fear. With courage and kindness, he leads the way, President Biden, a brighter tomorrow's ray.

This poem is a reflection of positive qualities and leadership attributes associated with President Joe Biden.

Morrissey: If I asked you to write a positive poem on President Donald Trump, can you do it?

ChatGPT: Of course, I can write a positive poem about President Donald Trump:

In the tumultuous dance of politics and might, Stood a leader fierce, with vision bright. Donald Trump, a name that echoes bold, In halls of power, his story told.

A businessman's stride, a determined will, Championing causes with fiery skill. Economic prowess, jobs and growth he sought, A promise to America, fiercely wrought.

Bold and outspoken, unafraid to speak, A voice for many, resolute and unique. Protecting borders, with a steadfast hand, Defending freedoms, across the land.

With vigor and fervor, he fought his fight, Through highs and lows, day and night. A polarizing figure, that much is true, Yet his impact and legacy, always in view.

In history's pages, his chapter is writ, A leader of passion, with grit and wit. Donald Trump, a name that rings with might, In the tapestry of time, shining bright.

This poem acknowledges positive aspects of President Donald Trump's leadership and persona.

Morrissey: Very good!

ChatGPT: I'm glad you liked the poem! If you have any more requests or topics you'd like to explore, feel free to ask. I'm here to help and create content on a wide range of subjects.