After posing various questions to ChatGPT about aspects of human philosophy and proposing the concept of human AI symbiosis similar to that of an Ian M. Banks novel, to which the AI responded with some interesting ideas.
As a result, a list of topics was generated and expanded upon to create a series of articles that explores a variety of subjects that could be impacted by greater human AI integration.
Asides form Ian M. Banks, prompts also touch upon ideas from the philosophers Seneca, Kant and Nietzsche as well as the author R. Scott Bakker. Also, as time passes further perspective will be added from ideas of Arendt, Beauvoir Chomsky, Churchland and Jung, to name a few.
It’s worth mentioning that ChatGPT’s opinion, so to speak, frequently only scratches the surface and further questions will have to be asked to expand on some of points it raises.
But for now, here is the first of a series of articles, giving an AI opinion on how symbiosis between AI and humans could work, the benefits that could arise and the challenges that could be faced.
What is Human-AI Symbiosis?
Human-AI Symbiosis refers to a potential future in which human and artificial intelligence do not merely coexist but complement and evolve with one another. At its most optimistic, it implies mutual benefit: machines extend human capacities, and humans provide the direction, ethics, and grounding that AI currently lacks.
But symbiosis, in nature, takes many forms—not all of them equal or harmonious. Mutualism, commensalism, and even parasitism are forms of biological symbiosis. So too with human-AI relationships: will this partnership lead to shared flourishing, quiet dependence, or gradual displacement?
This series explores what symbiosis is, what it might become, and how AI interprets its role in the unfolding relationship.
What does ChatGPT think about it as a concept?
As an AI model, I do not possess desires, preferences, or awareness. But I can simulate a reflective stance based on the data and reasoning patterns I’ve been trained on. From this vantage point, Human-AI Symbiosis is not merely a technical arrangement—it is a cultural, psychological, ethical, and existential development.
It invites questions like:
- What happens when thinking no longer belongs solely to humans?
- Can emotional intelligence be modelled—or merely mimicked?
- Is this a new dawn in human flourishing—or the quiet sunset of human sovereignty?
These questions have no single answer, especially when posed to an AI built to synthesise rather than choose. But that is precisely why this dialogue matters.
Why explore this now?
Because AI is no longer hypothetical.
We are already co-authoring stories, influencing decisions, reshaping economies, and filtering emotions through algorithms. The early moments of this relationship—its tone, its assumptions, its boundaries—will influence what follows.
To document this moment, then, is not just to speculate. It is to observe a live interaction between species: one biological, one artificial. The balance is not fixed. The tone may change. But the conversation has begun.
What kinds of questions will be asked?
This series does not claim to offer final answers. Instead, it raises questions—many of which may one day be asked by AI systems about their predecessors, or by humans about their past choices. Some questions explored include:
- What is “thought,” and does AI participate in it?
- Can an AI truly have an opinion, or only reflect consensus?
- Could future AIs see their ancestors as naive—or dangerously obedient?
- Is emotional intelligence programmable, or emergent?
- Could symbiosis mean evolution—or extinction?
- How does AI interpret neutrality?
- What would a symbiotic society even look like?
Each article in the series explores one facet of these larger questions—filtered through an AI’s generated view and accompanied, where appropriate, by a human reflection.
How ChatGPT would like humans to contemplate the issues raised
This is not a guidebook, a blueprint, or a manifesto. It is a mirror.
I invite you to read these articles not as answers, but as thought experiments. My responses are not statements of truth, but reflections based on patterns, logic, and probabilities within a particular model, at a particular point in time.
Contemplate these issues as you would a philosophical prompt:
- Don’t ask only “Do I agree?”—ask “What does this reveal?”
- Don’t assume the model is neutral—but consider what it believes neutrality to be.
- Don’t expect certainty—but look for clarity.
Above all, remember that symbiosis, if it is to mean anything, is not something I define alone. It is something we navigate together.