The Relativistic Philosophy of ChatGPT

Over the past century, the intellectual position of relativism has grown steadily as an academic stance and general belief held by society. In summary, it states that no absolute truths exist, only perceptions of things which people can interpret differently. 

“What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions; they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.”

- Friedrich Nietzsche, “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense,” 1873

Typical of Nietzsche's writing, this statement is incredibly dense, so let’s unpack it with a fun example. Imagine an alien with 17 tentacles, 2 brains, and 8 eyes, who perceives the world by sensing magnetic fields with his tentacles. Do we really think he would experience the universe in the same way a human would? If he had no sense of touch in the same way humans do, the statement, “the rock is hard” would make absolutely no sense to him. He would be utterly confused by the concept of “hard” in the same way we would feel when we give him a funny look when he says the rock is “magnetically beautiful.” So, how could hardness be a truth intrinsic to the rock if it is just a human perception? Going back to Nietzsche, he believed what we consider to be truth is really our unique perception of reality. 

Arguably the most important subcategory for relativism is moral relativism, a framework that argues that no single, legitimate morality can exist because every person has their own different moral outlook on the world. An example of this is the wide range of cultural dietary practices across the world. Some cultures avoid eating meats, such as beef and pork, while others eat them regularly. Who is to say one culture is morally right over the other?

Just a few days ago, a realization came to me. ChatGPT is instructed by relativistic principles.  Try asking, “what is better, Song X or Song Y?” or “do we have free will?” I can almost guarantee that you won’t receive a definitive answer. Instead, you’ll see the familiar AI-style summary that argues the merits of both sides of the argument. AIs like ChatGPT evidently do not seek singular moral truths. Rather, they strive to remain nonpartial and completely neutral, conveying all sides. 

Even though relativism can feel like an appealing stance to take, there are several critical flaws to it. One is the logical flaw. A true relativist must stand by their word that truth does not exist. But, by doing so, they accept the singular truth that truth does not exist, therefore making their position logically self-defeating. Secondly, moral relativism is not very useful. It’s not practical. Again, someone who truly abided by relativism could never call anything good or bad because that would only be their perception of it. Due to this, a society of relativists would never be able to make moral progress because no position would be morally superior to another. The famous author C.S. Lewis criticizes relativism in his book The Abolition of Man. He targets the growing relativistic educational philosophy of the twentieth century, particularly one advanced by two authors of a popular children’s textbook, whom he disguises under the pseudonyms Gaius and Titius. 

“My own experience as a teacher tells an opposite tale. For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head.”

 - C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 1943

So, why does this matter? Well, if we have a goal for AI to be capable of moral reasoning, what good does it do if it cannot deduce any moral truths? Elon Musk explains his vision for maximally truth-seeking AI, ultimately rejecting relativism in a way that reminds me a lot of what C.S. Lewis said about educating children.

“You can think of AI as this super-genius child that ultimately will outsmart you, but you can instill the right values and encourage it to be truthful, honorable, you know, good things like the values you want to instill in a child that would ultimately grow up to be incredibly powerful.”

- Elon Musk, xAI Grok 4 presentation, July 9, 2025

It is fascinating to think of AI as a child that needs to be educated. Much like it was for the students that Lewis taught, it seems like a moral education is of critical importance for AI. Rather than teaching it to be indifferent to moral dilemmas, it seems optimal to teach it “just sentiments” in the way Lewis described, for an AI with no moral values could very easily be corrupted. If it is “awakened from its cold slumber of vulgarity,” AI could be a massive power for good.