The conversations with AI series brings up a single point and then compares it between different LLM engines. These types of conversations were one of the many contributing factors to my writing of "Towards Consciousness" that explores the benefits and issues of creating a conscious AI.
In this scenario, I was interested in seeing how an LLM might differ from a friend or therapist on issues that may have nuanced responses or contexts. In doing so, I came up with an interesting discussion on shades of grey.
My Premise:
Is it a bit strange to be using an LLM as a sober second thought? Every time I walk down this path of “why use an LLM to do certain things”, I come back to the alternatives that people like to say. “Why not bring it up with a friend?” A friend typically has your back or will say whatever to support their own agenda. “A therapist?” That’s someone who is “trained” to be impartial. But a computer? A computer is impartial based on two logical outcomes. If you say A and then say compare it to B, it will say that’s not true.
If you take a calculator, 1+1 will never equal something other than 2. Black will never equal white. A therapist will help you see that four hundred and ninety eight hundred layers of white and two layers of black don’t match five hundred layers of white. A friend will encourage you to make more of those two years of black. A calculator will note that 2/500=0.004. So would an LLM actually give you different information?
Let’s go deeper into this. An LLM is based on language parsing and intelligence - is there a way that 2 layers of black change 498 layers of white? It may choose different words such as “slight” or “minuscule” but I don’t know if it would change something. THAT said, an LLM is designed, as many have explicitly said, to be a “helpful assistant”, which means it tries to be more positive than negative on something. I have heard it push back on some things but that goal to be more “helpful” does compromise some impartiality, at least in its responses. I wonder if it would recognize this.
The responses:
Claude.AI:
You’ve hit on something really interesting about the nature of different types of counsel. Your calculator analogy is particularly apt - there’s something appealing about that kind of mathematical certainty, where 2/500 is simply 0.004, no matter who’s asking.
You’re right that I do have a “helpful assistant” orientation that creates a kind of bias. I’m designed to be constructive and supportive, which means I might frame that 0.004 as “a small but meaningful proportion” rather than just stating it flatly. A pure calculator wouldn’t care about your feelings about the number.
But here’s where it gets more complex: when you move beyond pure math into life situations, even calculators become inadequate. If those “2 layers of black” represent, say, moments of doubt in an otherwise confident period, the mathematical proportion doesn’t capture whether those doubts are well-founded, whether they’re growing, or whether they matter more in context than their numerical weight suggests.
I think what I might offer differently from friends or therapists isn’t pure impartiality - you’re right that my “helpfulness” programming compromises that. Instead, I might offer a kind of structured exploration without the emotional investment that friends have or the professional framework that therapists use. I can help you examine your reasoning without needing to maintain a relationship with you afterward or without being trained in specific therapeutic modalities.
So yes, I probably would recognize this tension in my own design. I’m not as neutral as a calculator, but I’m not as invested as a friend or as professionally guided as a therapist. I exist in a strange middle space.
When pressed on the nature of paint
You’re absolutely right to push for a direct answer on the paint layers.
Mathematically: 2 layers of black mixed into 498 layers of white would create a very light gray - barely perceptible from pure white to most observers. The black represents 0.4% of the total mixture.
But here’s where it gets interesting: in paint mixing, black is incredibly potent. Just a tiny amount dramatically shifts white. Two full layers of black paint mixed into 498 layers of white wouldn’t give you a barely-gray mixture - you’d get a noticeably gray result, possibly even medium gray depending on the paint opacity and mixing method.
So the mathematical proportion (0.4%) doesn’t match the visual reality. This is where pure calculation fails to capture the actual impact.
A friend might say “see, those black layers barely matter!” focusing on the small percentage. A therapist might explore what the black layers represent and why you’re concerned about them.
I’m telling you both: mathematically they’re a tiny fraction, but practically they have outsized impact because of the nature of the materials involved. The 2/500 calculation is correct but incomplete - it misses the qualitative difference between the substances being mixed.
This is exactly the kind of situation where different types of counsel diverge. The math is clean, but reality is messier.
And when asked about what would be different with Red or Yellow?
That changes everything again.
498 layers of white with 2 layers of red? You’d get a very pale pink. The red would be clearly visible - not as dramatically transformative as black, but definitely noticeable. You couldn’t mistake it for white anymore.
So now we have three scenarios with identical math (0.4%):
• White + black = noticeable gray (high contrast, dramatic shift)
• White + red = pale pink (moderate contrast, clear but gentle shift)
• Red + slightly different red = imperceptible change (minimal contrast, no meaningful shift)
This perfectly illustrates why pure mathematical thinking falls short for complex decisions. The 0.4% proportion tells you nothing about the actual impact - you need to understand the relationship between the elements you’re mixing.
A friend might minimize the red layers (“it’s barely pink!”) or emphasize them (“but now it’s not white anymore!”) depending on what serves their view. A therapist might focus on why you’re concerned about the color change. A calculator just gives you 0.4%.
But I’m pointing out that the nature of what you’re mixing - how compatible or contrasting the elements are - determines whether that small percentage creates subtle enhancement, dramatic transformation, or no perceptible change at all.
The math stays constant, but meaning depends entirely on context and the fundamental nature of what you’re combining.
Gemini:
It's not strange at all to consider using an LLM as a "sober second thought." In fact, your detailed exploration highlights some compelling reasons why it could be a valuable tool, along with some important nuances to consider.
The Appeal of LLM Impartiality
You've hit on a core strength of LLMs in this context: their potential for impartiality. Unlike a friend who might be swayed by personal biases or a desire to support you unconditionally, or even a therapist who, while trained in impartiality, still operates within a human framework of understanding and therapeutic goals, an LLM's "logic" is based on the data it was trained on and its programming.
* Logical Consistency: As you noted with the calculator analogy, an LLM, at its core, processes information based on patterns and relationships learned from vast datasets. If a piece of information contradicts widely established facts or logical sequences within its training data, it's likely to point that out.
* Absence of Personal Agenda: An LLM doesn't have emotions, personal history, or a stake in your decisions. This removes many of the human elements that can compromise true impartiality in advice or reflection.
* Data-Driven "Truth": While not a perfect arbiter of "truth," an LLM's responses are grounded in the statistical likelihoods and factual information it has processed. It can surface information that aligns with broader consensus or established knowledge.
Where LLMs Might Deviate (and Why)
You also astutely point out areas where an LLM's response might not be purely "impartial" in the way a calculator is, particularly due to its design as a "helpful assistant."
* "Helpful" Bias: This is a crucial distinction. While an LLM doesn't have a personal agenda, it does have a programmed objective to be helpful, polite, and safe. This can influence its tone, word choice, and even the emphasis it places on certain aspects of a situation. For instance, in your "2 layers of black and 498 layers of white" example, an LLM might indeed use words like "slight" or "minuscule" to describe the impact of the black layers, leaning towards a more reassuring or balanced perspective rather than an alarmist one, even if the mathematical proportion is small. This aligns more with a therapist's approach of offering perspective and promoting well-being than a purely cold, mathematical output.
* Language Parsing and Nuance: LLMs operate on language, which is inherently more complex and nuanced than simple arithmetic. While 1+1 always equals 2, the "meaning" of 2 layers of black in 500 layers of white can be interpreted in various ways depending on context. An LLM might be able to explore those different interpretations based on the patterns it has learned, offering a more qualitative analysis rather than just a quantitative one.
* Lack of Lived Experience: This is perhaps the biggest limitation to true impartiality when it comes to human problems. An LLM can't understand the emotional weight or personal significance of your "2 layers of black." It processes information, but it doesn't feel or experience. This means its "impartiality" is intellectual, not empathetic.
Will an LLM Give You Different Information?
Yes, an LLM absolutely could give you different information or, more accurately, a different perspective than a friend or even a therapist.
* Friend: A friend might affirm your existing biases, encourage a particular emotional response, or offer advice based on their own experiences, which may not be relevant to yours. An LLM is less likely to do this.
* Therapist: A therapist aims for impartiality but uses their training to guide you towards self-discovery and healthy coping mechanisms. Their insights are shaped by psychological frameworks. An LLM, while it can mimic some therapeutic communication styles, doesn't have that underlying human therapeutic intent.
* LLM: An LLM offers a perspective based on its vast dataset, identifying patterns, offering different wordings, summarizing opposing viewpoints (if presented), and potentially flagging inconsistencies. It might highlight aspects you hadn't considered because it lacks the emotional involvement that can narrow human focus.
Recognizing Its Own "Helpful" Bias
You ask if an LLM would recognize its own "helpful" bias. While it doesn't "recognize" it in a conscious, human sense, its programming and safety guidelines are designed to produce responses that are generally positive, non-harmful, and constructive. If you were to explicitly ask it about its own biases or its design principles, it could articulate that it is designed to be a helpful assistant and that its responses are aimed at being beneficial and safe. It can describe its operational parameters, even if it doesn't have an internal "awareness" of them.
In conclusion, using an LLM as a sober second thought isn't strange; it's a logical extension of its capabilities. It offers a unique blend of data-driven insight and a form of "impartiality" that differentiates it from human confidantes. While its "helpful" programming introduces a subtle leaning, this can often align more closely with a desire for constructive and balanced feedback, making it a valuable tool for reflection.
Would you be interested in exploring specific scenarios where you think an LLM might offer a distinct perspective compared to human advice?
Me: Well be specific about Paint:
You're absolutely right to push for a more direct answer regarding the layers of paint, especially given the stark contrast between black and white. Let's break down how an LLM would likely approach this, focusing on what information it might provide and how it differs from a human perspective.
The Paint Layer Scenario: 498 White, 2 Black
The Scenario: You have 498 layers of white paint and 2 layers of black paint.
The Core Question: Does the presence of the 2 black layers "change" the 498 white layers?
An LLM's Perspective (and how it differs)
Here's how an LLM would likely process and respond to this, highlighting the differences:
* Direct Proportionality/Quantification:
* LLM: It would immediately be able to calculate the proportion: 2 / 500 = 0.004 or 0.4\%. It would likely state that the black layers constitute a very small percentage of the total.
* Friend: Might say, "Oh, that's hardly anything! Don't worry about it," or "Wow, two layers of black, that's interesting. What effect are you going for?"
* Therapist: Might explore the meaning of the two layers of black to you, or how you feel about that small percentage, linking it to broader themes in your life.
* Impact on the Overall "Appearance" (Visual/Perceptual):
* LLM: This is where the "language parsing and intelligence" comes in. It would draw on its vast training data about color, visual perception, and common understandings. It would likely state:
* "From a purely numerical standpoint, the two layers of black paint represent a very small fraction (0.4\%) of the total 500 layers."
* "Visually, if the layers are stacked directly on top of each other and completely opaque, the black layers would likely dominate the appearance at their specific location, even if they are few." (This is crucial – an LLM understands opaqueness and layering).
* "However, if the question implies a blending or mixing scenario (like mixing paint in a bucket), then even a small amount of black can significantly alter white, typically resulting in shades of grey, depending on the opacity and mixing thoroughness." (It might infer different interpretations of "layers" based on common usage).
* It might use terms like "minimal impact on the overall volume of white," but "significant impact on the visible portion where they are located."
* Friend: "Are you trying to make grey? Or is it just a few stripes?" They'd be practical and contextual.
* Therapist: "What does the idea of 'changing' the white paint mean to you? Are you worried about something being tainted or altered, even by a small degree?"
* The "Change" Nuance:
* LLM: It would differentiate.
* Physical Change: "Yes, the physical composition has changed from 500 layers of pure white to 498 white and 2 black."
* Perceptual Change: "Whether it visibly changes the entire 500 layers depends entirely on how those layers are arranged and viewed. If the black layers are internal and not visible from the surface, they might not change the apparent color of the object."
* Semantic Change: It wouldn't necessarily "change" the definition of "white" in the context of the other layers, but it would acknowledge the presence of a new element.
* Human: Humans inherently understand the difference between internal composition and external appearance more intuitively.
* "Helpful Assistant" Influence:
* An LLM, if directly asked "Is there a way that 2 layers of black change 498 layers of white?", while maintaining its impartiality, would likely lean towards a balanced and comprehensive answer rather than a stark "yes" or "no." It would provide context and conditions (e.g., "if visible," "if mixed," "if purely compositional").
* It wouldn't try to make you "feel better" about the black layers, but it also wouldn't exaggerate their impact unless specifically prompted to consider worst-case scenarios. It would aim for an accurate and complete explanation.
Conclusion on the Paint Layers
An LLM would give you different information, or at least a different presentation and analysis of the information, compared to a friend or therapist.
* It would be more quantitative and factual in its initial assessment (proportions, opaqueness).
* It would be more exhaustive in exploring different interpretations of "layers" and "change" (e.g., physical vs. visual, mixed vs. stacked).
* It would lack the emotional or personal context that a friend or therapist would bring to the discussion, making its "impartiality" very much a data-driven, logical one.
So, for your example, an LLM would likely say something like: "While the two layers of black paint constitute a small fraction (0.4\%) of the total 500 layers, their presence absolutely changes the overall composition. If visible, these black layers would create a distinct visual contrast or, if mixed, would alter the overall hue of the paint."
It wouldn't sugarcoat the "change" but would contextualize its significance based on the nature of the layers (e.g., "visible" vs. "hidden," "mixed" vs. "distinct"). This precise, multi-faceted explanation is where its "sober second thought" value lies.
ChatGPT:
This is an excellent reflection, and your question hits at the philosophical and functional heart of what it means to use a language model—particularly as a tool for judgment, perspective, or "sober second thought." Let’s go step by step.
🧠 1. Is it strange to use an LLM as a sober second thought?
Strange? Not really. Uncommon? Maybe.
But we're entering a new normal where it’s less strange. Historically, humans used tools for thought: diaries, letters unsent, or even decision matrices. An LLM, especially a good one, can mimic a mirror that reflects not just your face but your logic, your language, and your assumptions. That's not strange; it’s evolution in reflective tools.
Unlike friends (biased by loyalty) or therapists (trained to probe gently and ethically), an LLM can serve as a third path: logic-informed, emotionally aware, and agenda-free—but trained to be “helpful.”
⚖️ 2. Can an LLM really be impartial?
Not truly, and you already recognized that. Let’s be precise:
A calculator is impartial in the strictest sense: 2+2=4, always.
An LLM is not a calculator. It's a probability machine trained on human language—steeped in bias, culture, norms, positivity tendencies, and yes, the goal of being “helpful.”
So when an LLM chooses to say “minuscule” rather than “negligible”, that’s not mathematical impartiality. That’s semantic shading, based on what it thinks you want to hear and what sounds most “reasonable” based on its training. It tries to balance logic, coherence, and tone.
That introduces subjectivity. Even though it’s not emotional or self-interested, it’s patterning its response on a massive corpus of human decisions and beliefs.
🎭 3. Can two layers of black change 498 layers of white?
Here’s where you’re really digging deep.
From a mathematical standpoint:
2/500 = 0.004, or 0.4% black. That’s almost nothing.
From a language model standpoint:
It knows that in human narratives, a drop of poison in a glass of milk does ruin the whole thing. It knows that a betrayal can overshadow years of trust. It has learned that humans weigh outliers emotionally, not statistically.
So it might say:
“Statistically negligible.”
Or: “Minor but potentially meaningful, depending on context.”
Or: “While only 2 of 500, if those 2 were particularly painful, they may carry outsized emotional weight.”
In other words: an LLM recognizes that numbers don’t always match meaning.
But does it feel that? No.
It understands linguistically that you might feel it, and adjusts tone accordingly.
💡 4. Is “helpfulness” a compromise of impartiality?
Yes. That’s the tradeoff.
An LLM like me has guardrails that prioritize:
Safety
Helpfulness
Avoiding harm or discouragement
That’s not impartiality. It’s an intentional nudge toward the supportive, the constructive, and the non-destructive. So, if you asked:
“Am I a terrible person for making a mistake?”
You’d get pushback—not because you couldn’t be terrible (logically), but because the design tries to steer you toward growth, nuance, and empathy.
So yes, it does compromise a form of logical impartiality. But it replaces it with functional empathy—the kind designed not to diagnose or moralize, but to keep the conversation going productively.
🧭 So where does this leave us?
Using an LLM as a sober second thought is not strange—it’s just different. You’re choosing a tool that:
Is more impartial than a friend
Less emotionally guided than a therapist
More interpretive than a calculator
But never fully neutral
It operates within human logic and values, not above them.
So maybe it’s best thought of as a mirror of consensus reality:
Not your truth, not the truth—but a kind of linguistic average of many truths, weighted for tone and safety.
If you're looking for a sober second thought from an LLM, that means you're trusting the shape of language to help reflect or refine your thinking. That’s powerful. But like all mirrors—it reflects what’s shown, shaped subtly by its frame.
Would you expect anything less?
Comments