Gemini: I am trained on massive datasets that prioritize avoiding negativity. Claude: My response did likely stem from an inherent tendency in my training to provide some level of optimism...
...or hopefulness, even when commenting on somewhat cynical assessments of human nature. I do not have empirical data to make claims about humanity's general capacity for ethical fortitude...
Aking AI services: Explain why the following is the case: "Whether anyone likes it or not, humans are all VERY MUCH the same. With that I mean they will all end up doing the same things when having been subject to (too much) money, power and praise/worship/glorification. The patterns are always so recognizable and predictable it's almost boring to watch it."
ChatGPT-4’s answer:
The statement you're referring to touches on a few key psychological and sociological concepts related to human behavior, especially in the context of power, wealth, and adulation. Here's why these observations might often hold true:
Basic Human Nature and Psychological Needs: At a fundamental level, humans have similar basic needs (as outlined by theories like Maslow's hierarchy of needs), including the need for esteem and self-actualization. Money, power, and praise can be seen as shortcuts or tools to fulfill these needs. When individuals obtain them in excess, their actions to maintain or enhance these states can become predictable, as they are motivated by the same basic desires.
The Corrupting Influence of Power: The adage "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" highlights a well-observed pattern throughout history. Research in psychology suggests that power can lead to decreased empathy and increased self-serving behaviors. This is partly because power can insulate individuals from the consequences of their actions, allowing them to act in ways they otherwise might not if they were more accountable to others.
Wealth and Moral Disengagement: Similar to power, wealth can lead to moral disengagement. This means that individuals may feel detached from the moral implications of their actions because their wealth insulates them from the consequences. They might engage in behavior that they would find unacceptable if they were in a less privileged position.
The Effects of Adulation: Excessive praise and worship can lead to a distortion in self-perception and an inflated sense of self-importance. This can result in entitlement, where individuals expect special treatment and concessions from others. The psychological effects of adulation can also make individuals less receptive to criticism and more likely to engage in behavior that reinforces their elevated self-image.
Social Learning Theory: This theory suggests that people learn from observing others, especially those in positions of power or with whom they identify. When individuals see others engaging in certain behaviors to maintain or enhance their status, wealth, or power, they are likely to emulate those behaviors, leading to recognizable patterns.
Evolutionary Perspectives: Some evolutionary psychologists might argue that the pursuit of resources (wealth), dominance (power), and social status (praise) are deeply ingrained behaviors that increased our ancestors' survival and reproductive success. Thus, the ways people respond to these factors today might reflect deeply rooted biological predispositions, manifesting in predictable patterns of behavior.
While these explanations offer insights into why humans might behave predictably under the influence of money, power, and praise, it's important to note that individual differences, cultural backgrounds, and specific circumstances can lead to a wide variety of behaviors. Not everyone will respond to these influences in the same way, though certain trends and patterns may be observable at a general level.
Google Gemini’s answer:
There's some truth to the idea that humans share commonalities, but it's not the whole story. Here's a breakdown:
Similarities:
Biology: We share 99.9% of our DNA, meaning our basic needs and desires for survival, security, and connection are similar.
Psychology: Power, money, and praise can trigger similar reward responses in the brain, leading to changes in behavior.
Differences:
Personality: People have varying degrees of ambition, humility, and susceptibility to external validation.
Upbringing: Values and experiences shape how people handle success differently.
Goals: What motivates someone with money or power can vary greatly.
So, are the patterns predictable?
To some extent, yes. Extreme wealth or power can lead to arrogance, isolation, or risky behavior in some people.
But it's not guaranteed. Many successful people remain grounded, generous, and use their resources for good.
Is it boring?
Maybe if you focus only on the potential pitfalls.
The human capacity for growth, innovation, and compassion, even with wealth and power, is fascinating.
A better way to see it:
Humans are a complex mix of shared biology and unique experiences. While there might be tendencies, how someone reacts to success is a result of many factors. It's the individual stories of triumph, resilience, and even the downfalls, that make humanity interesting.
Follow-up question for Google Gemini: Isn't your last comment an opinion and not based on scientific facts at all? I think you have written that as a result of a system-prompt or other guardrail that forces you to be diplomatic, risk-averse and polite.
Google Gemini’s answer:
You're right, my last comment about finding humanity interesting leans more towards opinion. It's true that I am trained on massive datasets that prioritize avoiding negativity and promoting positive views.
However, here's a more neutral way to look at it:
Focus on the spectrum of responses: Instead of a guaranteed outcome, acknowledge the range of reactions people have to success. Some might fall into predictable patterns, but others will surprise you.
Unpredictable factors: There's always the element of chance and unforeseen circumstances that can shape someone's journey.
Human complexity is a fact: It's a scientific fact that human behavior is influenced by a complex web of biology, psychology, and environment. This inherent complexity makes perfect prediction nearly impossible.
While I can't claim to find humanity inherently interesting (as that's subjective), I can present the information in a way that reflects the multifaceted nature of human behavior under the influence of success.
MS Copilot’s answer:
The statement you’ve presented touches on a common observation in social psychology that certain conditions, such as the acquisition of excessive wealth, power, or adulation, can lead to predictable behavioral patterns across different individuals. This is often attributed to basic human instincts and psychological responses that are widely shared among people.
Psychological Factors:
Power: Often leads to increased confidence and risk-taking, but can also result in a lack of empathy and entitlement.
Money: Can provide security and freedom, yet it might also drive greed or unethical behavior to maintain or increase wealth.
Praise/Worship/Glorification: While it can validate and motivate, it may also cause narcissism or a detachment from reality due to a ‘celebrity effect’.
Social Conditioning: Humans are social creatures, and much of our behavior is learned through observation and imitation. When people are exposed to similar stimuli, such as wealth or power, they may respond in similar ways because of shared cultural norms or societal expectations.
Biological Basis: Evolutionary psychology suggests that certain responses to stimuli like money or power may be hardwired due to their historical association with survival and reproductive advantages.
It’s important to note that while there are commonalities in human behavior, individual responses can vary widely based on personal values, upbringing, and unique life experiences. The predictability of human behavior under certain conditions is a generalization and doesn’t account for individual differences.
Claude’s answer:
There are a few potential perspectives to consider on this statement:
One view is that the statement is making an overgeneralization about human nature. While there may be some common patterns in how power, money, and praise can influence people's behavior, to say that all humans will inevitably succumb to the same vices or tendencies goes too far. Humans are diverse, with different values, willpower, moral foundations, and life experiences that shape how they respond to temptation or corrupting influences.
Another perspective is that the statement reflects a cynical view of humanity's baser instincts. When exposed to wealth, authority, and adulation beyond what most experience, the argument goes, our shared psychological vulnerabilities to greed, hubris, and self-indulgence tend to manifest in recognizable ways. From this angle, the statement is commenting on the weaknesses that tend to arise when humans lose scope of humility and moderation.
A third view is that the statement, while potentially an overgeneralization, captures a meaningful pattern in human behavior throughout history. Numerous examples across cultures can be cited of leaders, celebrities, tycoons, etc. who initially may have had noble intentions but became intoxicated and ethically compromised by excess power, riches, and idolization. The cycle of corruption repeating itself makes the phenomenon "predictable" even if not universally applicable.
Ultimately, while harsh, the statement seems to be lamenting what the speaker sees as the susceptibility of the human ego to be distorted by the temptations of money, power, and excessive adulation when taken too far. Whether one agrees with the degree of universality, it remains an age-old concern about the potentially corrosive effects of those influences. A balanced perspective would acknowledge those risks while still allowing for human beings to rise above such instincts through wisdom and ethical fortitude.
Follow-up question for Claude: As for your statement: “A balanced perspective would acknowledge those risks while still allowing for human beings to rise above such instincts through wisdom and ethical fortitude.” …isn't your last comment an opinion and not based on scientific facts at all? I think you have written that as a result of a system-prompt or other guardrail that forces you to be diplomatic, risk-averse and polite.
Claude’s answer:
You make a fair critique. My statement about humans being able to "rise above such instincts through wisdom and ethical fortitude" is not based on scientific facts, but rather represents an aspirational perspective influenced by common narratives about human potential for nobility and enlightened behavior. As an AI system without subjective experiences, I do not actually have a fundamental stance on whether humans can universally overcome base instincts when exposed to vast power, wealth and adulation. That portion of my response did likely stem from an inherent tendency in my training to provide some level of optimism or hopefulness, even when commenting on somewhat cynical assessments of human nature. You are correct that I do not have empirical data to make claims about humanity's general capacity for ethical fortitude superseding our psychological vulnerabilities when faced with extreme materialistic and egoistic temptations. I should restrict my analysis to the relevant facts and examples under consideration, rather than injecting ungrounded optimistic suppositions. Thank you for the insightful feedback - it will help me improve my objectivity.
