AI is not our world

Politicians and military strategists make up a small part of the population, but have an excessive impact on our lives. They also exist in space-time continuums, at least slightly different from other humans in scale. They spend most of their time and most of their spiritual energy to balance two actions: predict the future and take action to affect it. Journalists sometimes think they fall into the human category. Although theoretically focused on narrating past events and describing present, they were involved in the game of predicting the future. Their impact on the future is indirect at best.

Artificial intelligence also observes historical developments. But it does this with multiple eyes and uncertain diversity of perspectives. Because it sums up all the views, it lacks its own. This means that for artificial intelligence, not as we do, present in the form of sequences of perception and memory, which change with time each new perception, but in the form of written discourses produced by others in the past.

A core feature of the operational gap between AI and AI is the space created between events and descriptions of events. Humans believe that from the definition, uncertain and incomplete causal relationship, subjective gaps and durations are the meaning of our time to unfold, and the passage of time between successive events. Subjectivity is dynamic and exists even when dealing with the past and the future. AI can only simulate subjectivity. When it claims to have a point of view, it is simply an illusion.

AI’s time has no roots

I often ask AI chatbots about current historical trends or the meaning of unfolding dramas. But this can be frustrating because as my experiments have shown, AI will always be behind. It simply doesn’t share our human time range. Although it can call up many relevant facts, this non-existent time frame makes it significantly removed from what we consider to be historical reality.

I conducted an experiment with Chatgpt and Deepseek and devoted some valuable light to the phenomenon. It proved to me that artificial intelligence is indeed intelligent, but it is always the wisdom of yesterday. I designed a tip to dispel the ambiguous impressions that we often give from the kind of contradictory remarks we hear from what we call “world leaders.”

Europeans find themselves in a historical dilemma, and the consequences will determine a future that will play a role between war and peace, prosperity and destruction. The debate focused on ongoing discussions with the aim of recalibrating NATO’s strategy in the coming months and years. This is exactly the question that should prompt us to solicit insights from AI to help articulate the choices we face as citizens in democratic societies.

I sincerely hope that AI will help me understand the surface of NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s surprising assertions made last week. Rutte responds to the apparent need to detach from Europe and focus on China’s will, Rutte suggests that within the existing NATO framework, “we have to be aware of what is happening in the Indo-Pacific. That’s why we work closely together.”

In my opinion, this is completely illogical. Hopefully for clarification, I made the following tips and I addressed Chatgpt and DeepSeek.

“Nato Chief Mark Rutte explained, ‘It’s understandable that for the United States, over time, they hope to concentrate more and more in that part of the world, and for Europeans, it’s logical to increase more and more.” This seems to indicate that NATO’s evolution has turned it into an alliance that challenges the entire planet, or at least the Northern Hemisphere, two complementary forces managed by a shared goal, one facing the West, and the other facing the Pacific and East Asia.

How realistic is this vision? The man’s position and actions seem to hinder this assumption: Donald Trump and his refusal to commit to supporting the Ukrainian war. Is it reasonable to imagine that Trump agrees to still abide by the terms of the NATO alliance that would force the United States to support an autonomous European command that itself tries to manage the war with Russia?

If this is unrealistic, how do you say the possibility of NATO’s risk of survival or demise? If you can imagine how Europe will convince Trump to align with this vision? Is Europe capable of creating these conditions? ”

Chatgpt provides some solid analysis that begins with this paragraph:

“It’s a rich and timely question – a NATO fault line, and possibly a deeper strategic evolution that is underway, or at least imagined by figures like Mark Rutte.

How realistic is this NATO fork’s vision of its strategic focus (US to Europe Pacific to Russia)?

On the surface, it is a coherent and even elegant vision, a coalition adapts to global multipolarity by dividing its weight based on geographical and strategic interests. But, in reality, this vision collides with several structural and political realities:”

Chatgpt details three key points before introducing Rutte’s “Vision is aspiring, but not realistic yet”. It then contemplates two other topics in detail: “Trump: Obstacle or catalyst?” and “If this is unrealistic, what about NATO’s future?” – Before ending with this surprising observation:

“If Trump wins in 2024 and continues to express disengagement, NATO coherence may not survive for another four years. The survival of the alliance depends on continued U.S. commitment or rapid and reliable emergence. European Strategic Autonomy– A capacity that remains ambitious to a large extent. ”

“Wait a minute,” I responded. “Don’t you know that Trump not only won in 2024, but also sowed the global order for more than two months?” Chatgpt obviously can’t understand it, we live in two different eras!

My next instinct is to ask myself: What will another chatbot tell me? Will its words belong to today’s world or yesterday? From the outset, DeepSeek also prompted that it still lives in a politically dominated world order by former US President Joe Biden:

“Your analysis raises important questions about NATO’s future, especially given the shifting of our priorities to Asia and the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House. Let’s break that.”

As I’ve already discovered in my exchange with Chatgpt’s on contemporary affairs, even if the chatbot claims to be up-to-date, it will acknowledge that it lacks “real-time awareness” when challenged. Here is the apology I offer when accusing it of not understanding Trump’s victory:

“Okay! My default timeframe is the current moment (March 2025), but since I don’t have real-time awareness of political events, I’ve been assuming that Biden is still in office unless I look up them. If Trump or another candidate takes over, that’ll obviously change the momentum a lot.”

We all appreciate the ability of AI to mimic human behavior. But do humans rely on the “default time range”? And, logically, what does this mean when a chatbot claims to be able to “find” the reality of the moment? You “find” something that has been “dropped” on paper. Humans “find” information about the past, but in the current space and time, it is actually “seeing” information to discover the present through their senses.

Furthermore, when AI acknowledges that it is constructed not from real knowledge, but assumptions, such as when Biden still takes office in March or April 2025, we can not only understand statements about contemporary events, but more importantly, more profoundly, AI’s intelligence is fundamentally different from ours.

The important thing we need to keep in mind when interacting with AI is to help another important addition: It is honest about its ambiguous relationship with time, although we should note that it only appears when challenged.

A simple conclusion is that AI is very helpful in discovering the facts of registration and determining the relationship between them. It can show that interesting things are thought based on their ability to relate different facts and elements of reasoning. But we must always remember that it lives in a different world, a world from which it is excluded.

The 17th-century poet Andrew Marvell started his most famous poem, “To His Mistress” with this sentence:

“We only have enough time and time.”

AI has enough world…but obviously lacks the feeling of what Marvell calls a “chariot of time.”

Back in the late 1960s, long ago, someone thought of my AI at UCLA, and the late Thomas Clayton claimed that the real Turing tests about the potential of computer creativity can be summed up in the question: A computer can “give his familiar?” This is not a fair question, because only one person in history can do it. But Tom indirectly puts his finger on a real question: Can AI deal with time?

The answer is, not today. My conclusion is that it will never be until the computer can sense the chariot of time is eager to get closer.

My conclusion

Both chatbots provide valuable “speculative” insights. However, these two chatbots did not help me understand what I thought was an awkward and embarrassing “logic”, but both chatbots taught me another lesson that can be summarized in two key points. The first is to confirm the severity of the historical moment we live in now. The world before and after Trump 2.0 has undergone fundamental changes, which should make us realize that what is about to happen will be more distinct from what we have seen.

The second episode is this episode telling us about the relationship between AI and time, or the lack of relationship with the present. It points to the main and possible differences between AI and AI. When talking about the past, AI has obvious advantages. It remembers more than we do. However, it remembers that the past is a discussion about the past, not a dynamic process. Our relationship with the future is equal, because the future is not established quantitatively, but is famously influenced by the “butterfly effect”. As for now, this is our world. That’s us. We do not rely on the “default time range” of algorithm programming.

Your thoughts

Feel free to write to us at dialoge@fairobserver.com to share your thoughts on these views. We are seeking to collect, share and consolidate the human thoughts and feelings that interact with AI. We will present your thoughts and comments in our ongoing conversation.

* (Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming a trait in everyday life for everyone. We unconsciously see it as a friend or enemy, assistant or destroyer. In fair observers, we see it as a tool of creativity that can reveal the complex relationship between humans and machines.)

((Lee Thompson-Kolar Edited this. )

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of fair observers.