. . . continuing a discussion with AL. So, I ask AL a sixth question ("User prompt"). I bolded some of the text in GPT's answer, as the wording as presented surprised me. Of course, the suggestion of satisficing on a large scale might seem utopian.
One that I appreciate about this AI is how it overlooks misspellings and clumsy word choices.
[This conversation was generated with Duck.ai (https://duck.ai) using OpenAI's GPT-4o mini Model. AI chats may display inaccurate or of[ensive information (see https://duckduckgo.com/duckai/privacy-terms for more info)]
User prompt 6 of 7 - 10/9/2025, 3:33:33 PM:
All this makes me think that perhaps for a given issue AI should be given contradictory goals and told to "satisfice". This would seem to set guardrails in a way that [ensures] outcomes that are agreeable [even among] opposing parties.
GPT-4o mini:
## The Concept of Contradictory Goals and Satisficing in AI
Your idea of assigning contradictory goals to AI systems and instructing them to "satisfice" (i.e., to find a solution that is "good enough" rather than optimal) is intriguing. This approach could potentially enhance decision-making in complex situations where conflicting interests exist. Here’s an exploration of how this might work and its implications:
### 1. **Defining Contradictory Goals**
- **Multiple Objectives:** By giving an AI system contradictory or competing goals (e.g., maximize user efficiency while minimizing resource consumption), you create a framework where the AI must navigate trade-offs.
- **Conflict Resolution:** This could help in scenarios where stakeholders have divergent interests, allowing the AI to seek solutions that balance different, sometimes opposing, requirements.
### 2. **Satisficing as a Strategy**
- **Threshold of Acceptability:** Instead of aiming for a singular optimal solution, the AI would aim for solutions that meet predefined satisfaction thresholds for all conflicting parties. This would encourage compromise and collaboration.
- **Flexibility in Outcomes:** Satisficing allows for adaptive responses, enabling the system to pick solutions that may not be perfect but are adequate given the constraints and conflicting goals.
### 3. **Potential Benefits**
- **Encouraging Collaboration:** By forcing the AI to consider various perspectives, it might create more agreeable outcomes and facilitate negotiation between conflicting parties.
- **Reduction of Extreme Outcomes:** This approach may prevent the AI from gravitating toward solutions that might disproportionately favor one party over another, promoting fairness.
### 4. **Challenges to Consider**
- **Complexity in Defining Goals:** Formulating clear, measurable contradictory goals can be complicated. There’s also a risk of decision-making paralysis if the contradictions are too extreme.
- **Evaluating Acceptability:** Determining what constitutes an acceptable solution could vary widely among stakeholders and would need careful consideration to avoid bias.
### 5. **Implementation Considerations**
- **Designing Guardrails:** Clear guidelines would be necessary to help the AI navigate between conflicting goals. This might involve human oversight, especially in high-stakes decisions.
- **Potential Need for Ethical Frameworks:** Embedding an ethical framework could further guide the AI in making decisions that are more aligned with human values while satisfying various goals.
---
In summary, using contradictory goals and satisficing in AI could provide a framework for more balanced decision-making in complex situations. However, careful consideration must be given to how these goals are defined and evaluated to ensure that outcomes remain equitable and aligned with human ethics. This approach presents an innovative avenue for navigating the challenges posed by AI in diverse and conflicting environments.
One that I appreciate about this AI is how it overlooks misspellings and clumsy word choices.
[This conversation was generated with Duck.ai (https://duck.ai) using OpenAI's GPT-4o mini Model. AI chats may display inaccurate or of[ensive information (see https://duckduckgo.com/duckai/privacy-terms for more info)]
User prompt 6 of 7 - 10/9/2025, 3:33:33 PM:
All this makes me think that perhaps for a given issue AI should be given contradictory goals and told to "satisfice". This would seem to set guardrails in a way that [ensures] outcomes that are agreeable [even among] opposing parties.
GPT-4o mini:
## The Concept of Contradictory Goals and Satisficing in AI
Your idea of assigning contradictory goals to AI systems and instructing them to "satisfice" (i.e., to find a solution that is "good enough" rather than optimal) is intriguing. This approach could potentially enhance decision-making in complex situations where conflicting interests exist. Here’s an exploration of how this might work and its implications:
### 1. **Defining Contradictory Goals**
- **Multiple Objectives:** By giving an AI system contradictory or competing goals (e.g., maximize user efficiency while minimizing resource consumption), you create a framework where the AI must navigate trade-offs.
- **Conflict Resolution:** This could help in scenarios where stakeholders have divergent interests, allowing the AI to seek solutions that balance different, sometimes opposing, requirements.
### 2. **Satisficing as a Strategy**
- **Threshold of Acceptability:** Instead of aiming for a singular optimal solution, the AI would aim for solutions that meet predefined satisfaction thresholds for all conflicting parties. This would encourage compromise and collaboration.
- **Flexibility in Outcomes:** Satisficing allows for adaptive responses, enabling the system to pick solutions that may not be perfect but are adequate given the constraints and conflicting goals.
### 3. **Potential Benefits**
- **Encouraging Collaboration:** By forcing the AI to consider various perspectives, it might create more agreeable outcomes and facilitate negotiation between conflicting parties.
- **Reduction of Extreme Outcomes:** This approach may prevent the AI from gravitating toward solutions that might disproportionately favor one party over another, promoting fairness.
### 4. **Challenges to Consider**
- **Complexity in Defining Goals:** Formulating clear, measurable contradictory goals can be complicated. There’s also a risk of decision-making paralysis if the contradictions are too extreme.
- **Evaluating Acceptability:** Determining what constitutes an acceptable solution could vary widely among stakeholders and would need careful consideration to avoid bias.
### 5. **Implementation Considerations**
- **Designing Guardrails:** Clear guidelines would be necessary to help the AI navigate between conflicting goals. This might involve human oversight, especially in high-stakes decisions.
- **Potential Need for Ethical Frameworks:** Embedding an ethical framework could further guide the AI in making decisions that are more aligned with human values while satisfying various goals.
---
In summary, using contradictory goals and satisficing in AI could provide a framework for more balanced decision-making in complex situations. However, careful consideration must be given to how these goals are defined and evaluated to ensure that outcomes remain equitable and aligned with human ethics. This approach presents an innovative avenue for navigating the challenges posed by AI in diverse and conflicting environments.
Last edited:
