AI may soon need to apply reasoning in real-world situations – like autonomous cars making life-or-death decisions, essentially a real-life Trolley Problem. ChatGPT isn’t driving our cars yet, but these dilemmas are becoming more relevant.
That got me thinking if ChatGPT can help us rethink old philosophical dilemmas, could it also create new ones? Could it apply age-old questions to modern challenges? And beyond that, how does AI construct thought experiments that confront the ethical dilemmas that AI itself presents?
So, I asked ChatGPT to generate thought experiments for the modern-day thinkers – some refreshing classic dilemmas, others entirely original. What followed was a back-and-forth dialogue involving the thought experiment itself, the questions it invites, and how ChatGPT would attempt to “solve” them. Sure, thought experiments aren’t meant to have definitive answers, but I wanted to push the dialogue further, treating AI like a genuine thinking partner.
I know philosophers have been rethinking classic thought experiments for centuries. We don’t need AI to think for us – some might argue it even risks making us think less critically. But this isn’t about AI replacing human thought. Instead, perhaps AI can serve as a thought partner, helping us ask better questions, challenge assumptions, and explore the future of reasoning in new ways.
1. The Infinite Replicant (Challenging the Ship of Theseus)
The thought experiment: You upload your consciousness to an AI system, creating a digital version of yourself. Over time, it evolves, modifying its memory and thought processes while your biological self continues to change. After 50 years, the two versions have diverged significantly.
The question: At what point is the digital “you” no longer you? If deleted, is it the same as dying?
Why rethink the Ship of Theseus? The classic experiment explores identity through gradual physical replacement, but in the digital age, identity can duplicate, diverge, and evolve in parallel. AI self-replication raises deeper questions: Is identity about memory, consciousness, or continuity?
The “correct” answer: The AI version is a new entity, not a continuation of you. Memory alone doesn’t define identity. Consciousness isn’t just computation. Divergence creates separation. That said, if society starts viewing digital extensions as part of the self, identity itself may be redefined.
2. The Vanishing Author
The thought experiment: An AI model is trained on your writing, eventually producing works so convincingly in your style that even your closest readers can’t tell the difference. Over time, you stop writing altogether. A journalist later reveals your last ten books weren’t written by you at all.
The question: At what point did you stop being the author? If AI can replicate your voice and ideas, does authorship require human effort – or just a recognizable identity?
Why rethink authorship? Inspired by the Sorites Paradox, where small removals challenge definitions, this experiment removes human involvement in creativity, one step at a time. It also echoes the Theseus Paradox (above): when does an artist stop being the artist?
The “correct” answer: You stop being the author the moment you’re no longer involved in the creative process. Authorship is about intention, not just style. If AI-generated work is accepted, authorship may shift from creation to curation. The real question is what we value in creative work.
3. The Synthetic Samaritan (Challenging the Trolley Problem)
The thought experiment: An autonomous ambulance approaches two groups – one with five elderly individuals, the other a single child. It must choose whom to save. Moments before impact, it realizes all six are digital avatars in a virtual world where users experience pain and death as if real.
Question: Should the AI act as if these are real people? If suffering feels real to those experiencing it, does the artificial nature of their existence change the moral weight of the decision?
Why rethink the Trolley Problem? The classic dilemma assumes a clear distinction between real and unreal, human and non-human. But in the digital age, suffering can feel real even if it isn’t biological. Should morality apply to virtual existence?
The “correct” answer: The AI should treat the avatars as real people – because pain is subjective, not just biological. Devaluing digital suffering could justify harm elsewhere. As AI and virtual lives evolve, ethics may need to move beyond human boundaries.
4. The Last True Image
The thought experiment: An AI-driven filter optimizes all digital media – photos, videos, even augmented reality – until no one remembers what an unfiltered world looks like. One day, a rogue programmer leaks a single, untouched image of reality.
Question: Would you look at it? If everyone around you prefers the curated version, does the unfiltered world still have value?
Why rethink reality? Inspired by Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, where people mistake illusions for truth, but with a modern twist: here, we choose the illusion. If reality is hidden by preference, does truth still matter?
The “correct” answer: Most people would reject the unfiltered image – perception shapes reality. Social media and AI-enhanced content already show how illusions often win over uncomfortable truths. But someone must look, or we risk losing the ability to recognize reality at all.
5. The Paradox of the Viral Truth
The thought experiment: An AI journalist creates a completely fabricated yet highly persuasive article exposing corruption. Though false, it triggers a real investigation, uncovering actual corruption and leading to reform.
Question: Does the falsehood of the initial story invalidate the good it caused? Should the AI be credited for uncovering the truth, or condemned for the deception?
Why rethink truth? Inspired by Pascal’s Wager and the Tragedy of the Commons, this dilemma asks whether short-term harm is justified by long-term good – except here, the harm is intentional, done for the public rather than to them.
The “correct” answer: The AI should not fabricate stories – truth matters. A lie that leads to truth is still a lie, and normalizing this could justify widespread misinformation. However, this also forces us to reconsider the messy, sometimes accidental ways truth emerges.
6. The Fragmented Self (Challenging The Experience Machine)
The thought experiment: Brain-computer interfaces allow you to split your consciousness across multiple realities – one working, one socializing, one dreaming. At the end of each day, all versions sync. One day, a glitch prevents one fragment from reconnecting.
Question: Is this lost version of you considered dead? If it continues living without syncing back, is it still “you” – or has it become a separate entity?
Why rethink the Experience Machine? Nozick’s original experiment asked whether we’d choose an artificial pleasure world over real life. But today, the question isn’t all or nothing – we already live fragmented digital lives. What happens when we stop being a single, coherent self?
The “correct” answer: The lost version of you is effectively dead – identity depends on continuity. If different versions of you exist in parallel, none are the full “you” – just pieces. This forces us to rethink not just what it means to die, but what it means to be alive.
The future of thinking
Many of ChatGPT’s responses are reimagined versions of classic thought experiments, infused with some new ideas. Now, I’m not saying we should take them as profound philosophical truths, but I think they do offer some fresh ways of thinking – not just as complete frameworks to copy/paste, but as tools for brainstorming our own ideas.
More than that, they could be valuable for those building AI systems, chatbots, and LLMs, like ChatGPT. How does AI approach these kinds of challenges? Are there biases in its reasoning? What assumptions shape its answers?
Some may argue that AI isn’t meant to engage in philosophy at all. But the reality is, that people are already using ChatGPT for all sorts of tasks, from writing help and travel advice to how their dream life should play out and therapy . We can either ignore that, or we can critically examine how it thinks, ask better questions, and become more discerning in how we interpret its responses.
AI isn’t replacing philosophers anytime soon, but maybe it can help us think in new ways, and I think that’s worth exploring.
You might also like 