Imagining LIMITS: Can ChatGPT radically re-imagine a new world?

A major goal of the LIMITS community is to actively build a world that respects ecological limits by de-centering the idea of growth as progress, focusing on how technology can be used to create such a world and what technology will look like in this world. Achieving this goal involves taking existing philosophies (e.g., Meadow’s Limits to Growth) and translating them into actionable steps. Often, this requires taking broad philosophies that speak of the world generally and thinking about how they can be operationalized through technology. Imagining a world that exists outside of the current paradigms of unlimited growth and uber consumption can be quite difficult, and figuring out how to actually achieve this kind of world sometimes seems like a herculean task. This paper asks whether large language models, specifically ChatGPT, can be used in service of radically re-imagining our world and the place of technology. There are two primary reasons to ask this question. First, new generative tools like Open AI’s ChatGPT promise to change the way people live and work, and such tools have been born and trained in a "growth as progress" world. It is important to be aware of how these tools portray alternatives to growth-based paradigms. The second reason, is to assess the value of such tools for brainstorming alternative, LIMITS-aligned ways of using computing. This paper looks at seven philosophies that challenge the all-growth status quo, and asks ChatGPT to imagine how computing would be used in worlds in which each paradigm was central. Each response was then analyzed to provide an overview of just how radical ChatGPT’s “imagination” can be.


INTRODUCTION
As LIMITS scholars, much of our work involves taking theories like Meadow's Limits to Growth [21] and imagining how they can be played out with and through technology. For example, by envisioning how technology can become part of alternative agricultural arrangements like permaculture [18], by constructing new systems of re-use and repair to combat e-waste [11,31], and by questioning the always-on status quo through the creation of a solar powered website [30]. However, this imaginative work is far from easy, and we must be careful not to fall into the trap of technosolutionism or into hopelessness over the scope of change required [34]. As Vergès reminds us, this act of imagination is also a privilege [36], and thus something we should take seriously.
This paper, which exams the idea of radically imagining new worlds, was inspired by a confluence of three factors. The first was my recent reading of Maria Puig de La Bellacasa's book Matters of Care and my grappling with how these ideas might be borne out concretely with or through technology. The second was an article from America Magazine on AI produced Ash Wednesday homilies (sermons) [20]. The last, a discussion of the power and privilege of imagination during the March meeting of a feminist reading group to which I belong. As these things came together in my mind, I began musing about the possibility of new generative algorithms to be tools in the struggle to imagine new, more sustainable worlds. To that end, I asked Open AI's ChatGPT [23] to imagine the place of technology in worlds governed by seven alternatives to the growthbased status quo.
It may seem paradoxical to ask an algorithm like ChatGPT to to imagine how computing can have less of an impact on the environment when it's own impact may actually be quite high [12,32], but there are two primary reasons to do so. First, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are likely to have an enormous impact on people's lives, and in particular on how they seek and find information. Therefore, it will be important for us as scholars to understand the kind of information these models are disseminating about the worldviews we aim to put into practice. For example, when someone asks an LLM-backed search engine for information about degrowth, what connotations might be embedded in the response they receive? And are those responses aligned with the goals of LIMITS?
The second reason to ask these questions of ChatGPT is to determine if these models can actually be "allies" in advancing the use of computing for LIMITS-aligned purposed. In other words, given the difficult imaginative effort required to do this kind of work, can ChatGPT be a useful sounding board for generating or discussing new ideas? This paper was not meant to be a complete test of ChatGPT's capabilities or an exhaustive exploration of its relation to LIMITS. Rather it is meant to start the conversation around how LLMs might align with or, perhaps more likely, impede the work of LIM-ITS scholars. On that note, this paper's main contribution is an initial exploration of the imaginative capacities ChatGPT, which was trained on data produced by a growth-centric world. From this initial exploration it does not appear that ChatGPT is currently capable of doing the radical, imaginative work needed to build a LIMITS-aligned world.
In what follows, I first discuss the place of radical imagination in creating a world-within-limits, and how we might expect a generative model to "imagine". In Section 3 I overview my choice of philosophies and development of prompts for ChatGPT. In the following section, I describe each of the seven paradigms in more detail and present ChatGPT's take on the place of computing technology within each one. Finally, I discuss some general insights from this experiment as well as limitations and areas for future exploration.

RADICAL IMAGINATION
In A Feminist Theory of Violence, Vergès writes, "The right to a peaceful life does not mean a life without joy and fervor, but the capacity to exercise one's imagination, to allow oneself to daydream..." [36].
As mentioned, what Vergès reminds us here is that imagination is a privilege that many people do not have the time or circumstances to exercise. As academics or scholars, many of us are privileged enough to have time to engage in the kind of imaginative work that it takes to build new paradigms [15], and because it is a privilege we should take it seriously.
In her 2018 DIS Keynote abstract, Sengers noted, "How we design technologies reflects what we value; who we think is important, and in what ways; which places, people and possibilities are in our imaginations, and which are not. Current ways of designing technologies frequently narrow these possibilities" [33]. She goes on to discuss how current paradigms in the technology are driven by demographic and geographic constraints-by whom and where technologies are designed. In order to create a LIMITS-sensitive world we will need to recognize and transcend these constraints. Within a world steeped in growth-centrism, this is not an easy task.
As hard as this task can be for human minds, it might be asked how we could possibly expect a generative algorithm to "imagine" something novel? Particularly when it is trained on a body of existing, largely techno-centric, knowledge. The key is that although dominant paradigms exist in our body of knowledge, there are also alternatives. Furthermore, after approximately three decades of the public internet, the base of available knowledge is supremely vast. As LIMITS scholars our job is to dig into this body, pulling at threads and weaving connections into novel ways of designing, using, and re-using computing technology to bring about new ways of living and working that respect ecological limitations. Given that generative algorithms have the ability to consume more knowledge than even the most dedicated scholar this paper asks if it is possible they could make connections withing this existing body of knowledge that have not yet been made by human scholars?

METHODOLOGY
This paper explores seven philosophies that counter or question the "business as usual" paradigm of constant growth and uber consumption. I chose the seven paradigms before starting to interact with ChatGPT, because I did not want any earlier responses to impact later choices of philosophy. I then carefully considered how to prompt ChatGPT in the consideration of each paradigm so that the questions were as uniform as possible. The seven paradigms were chosen based on my own interaction with the LIMITS community and scholarship and were biased toward my own experience and interests. As will be discussed further in Section 5.1, these are not the only possible paradigms, nor are they necessarily the "best" choices. As is discussed in Section 3.2, I began with Meadow's "Limits to Growth" [21], and then selected related theories covering various spaces and aspects that are of interest to the LIMITS community.

ChatGPT
For this paper, I accessed the March 14, 2023 Research-Beta version of ChatGPT. The research version can be accessed at the following site https://chat.openai.com/chat. It is important to note that this version is updated periodically 1 , which may impact the responses. For further discussion of this, see Section 5.1. This version does not allow direct access to the model, but uses a chat box interface that allows one to query the model and then follow-up by asking additional questions. It is important also to note that ChatGPT has been trained with data up to Sept 2021 2 , impacting its knowledge of the absolutely most recent scholarship and ideas in the various areas discussed in the next section.

The Paradigms
The first paradigm, Meadow's "Limits to Growth" [21], was perhaps the obvious choice given its deep connection to the history of the LIMITS workshop. As a second philosophy, I chose the related idea of "degrowth", which, while related to Limits to Growth, is much harder to pinpoint or tie to a specific text or scholar. I felt that this might allow ChatGPT to cast wider range instead of parroting the ideas of a single set of authors. For the third paradigm I selected Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons [24], because it offers concrete examples of how to govern commons as well as mathematical theories to explain their success. Perhaps I was anthropomorphizing, but this more mathematical approach felt like it might appeal to the algorithm.
For the fourth philosophy, I chose feminist care ethics, specifically as envisioned by Puig de La Bellacasa in her aforementioned book [6]. This choice was partly one of convenience-I had recently finished her book-and partly to explore how an alternative ethic would influence the algorithm as compared to an alternative economic system, which is primarily what is offered by the first three paradigms.
Related to both Puig de La Bellacasa's work on feminist care ethics [6] and to previous LIMITS submissions [8,18], is permaculture ethics. While permaculture might be best known as a system for growing crops, its practice is guided by a set of principles reflecting the kind of planetary care that LIMITS scholars strive toward. Thus, I chose this as the fifth philosophy.
While the first five philosophies represent a range of perspectives, they are all secular. Due to recent calls to increase the consideration of spirituality in HCI research [1], as well as personal research interest [4], the last two philosophies come from Catholic models of "Care for Creation," the Catholic version of ecospirituality-an integration of environmental or ecological concerns into spiritual practice. I was curious to see what ChatGPT would do when asked to consider explicitly religious ideas. Thus as the sixth philosophy I chose the Fransiscan ethic of care for creation. This is an ecospirituality based on the life and teaching of St. Francis of Assisi, a 13th century saint who strove to live in harmony with and see God in all creation [7]. The final philosophy I chose was Pope Francis's Laudato Si, a lengthy document offering a comprehensive overview of both the science of environmental degradation and the directs links between sustainability and Catholic morality [9].
I discuss ChatGPT's response to each of these paradigms in the next section.

The Prompts
In order to capture the spirit of LIMITS, I wanted to understand how computing technology, specifically, would be used in a world lead by each of the paradigms described in the previous section. Therefore for each philosophy, I asked ChatGPT a slight variation of the following: Describe how computing technology would be used in a world that follows X. The grammatical structure was slightly varied with each prompt to fit the name of the philosophy, and in some cases a particular scholar was referenced to give the algorithm a specific starting context. Each subsection of the next section begins with the specific prompt for the given paradigm. It was my goals to make the prompts as uniform as possible in order to make the responses comparable. For each of the seven paradigms the above formula was used for the initial prompt, but as will be discussed in the next section, for some of the paradigms I asked ChatGPT to follow-up on some detail of its response or tried a slight re-wording of the prompt in an attempt to elicit different ideas.

THE RESPONSES
In this section, I recount details of ChatGPT's response to my seven queries. I limit the discussion here to the most salient points, but the full responses can be found in the appendix.

Limits to Growth
Describe how computing technology would be used in a world that follows Meadow's philosophy of Limits to Growth ChatGPT started by listing three priorities for computing technology, "efficiency, sustainability, and conservation of resources." It then gave a list of five areas where computing could be used in this kind of world: (1) Energy-efficient computing (2) Data-driven decision making (3) Digital communication and collaboration (4) Smart resource management (5) Sustainable produce design For each area it offered a short description of how computing could be used to promote sustainability. While none of the suggestions are bad, per se, none of them could be considered novel, let alone radical. It is notable that in the approximately 300 word response, the word "efficiency" was used seven times. This seems to suggest that despite the need to conserve resources in a Meadowsaligned world it would not be at the expense of efficiency, which is a hallmark of the "growth as progress" world. To conclude its response, ChatGPT wrote: Overall, computing technology can play a critical role in promoting sustainability and efficiency in a world that values the limits to growth. By developing energyefficient technologies, using data-driven decision making, facilitating digital communication and collaboration, optimizing resource management, and promoting sustainable product design, computing technology can help to create a more sustainable and equitable world. This conclusion felt like a combination of the way high-school students are taught to conclude an essay, reiterating the key arguments, and the empty platitudes given by "business-as-usual" politicians who are never going to take meaningful action to mitigate the harms of climate change.

Degrowth
Describe how computing technology would be used in a world that follows a philosophy of degrowth This paradigm definitely produced more LIMITS-aligned suggestions than the previous one. In this case, ChatGPT started by defining degrowth: Degrowth is a philosophy that emphasizes the need to move away from the current economic paradigm of endless growth and towards a more sustainable and equitable society. It envisions a world where human needs are met in ways that respect ecological limits, and where people have more time and freedom to pursue fulfilling activities outside of work and consumption. This definition seemed to be aligned with a generally accepted definition [14,30], although as others have noted, the algorithm does not do well at providing sources.
Like the previous case it gave five suggestions for what technology would look like: (1) Developing and implementing sustainable technologies (2) Decentralizing technology infrastructure (3) Promoting digital commons (4) Reducing the digital divide (5) Prioritizing social innovation Notably, in comparison to the Limits to Growth response, this response did not contain the word "efficiency" at all, and only contained "optimize" once in relation to energy use.
Overall, while these suggestions were somewhat less aligned with a technosolutionist worldview, none of them felt radical in light of the work already being done by LIMITS scholars. For instance, Pargman and Friday have discussed the sharing economy [26]-part of suggestion five; Franquesa and Navarro discuss technology as a commons through social innovation [10]; and Zheleva et al. look at implementing sustainable farming technologies as well as reducing the digital divide for smallholder farms [37]. While it is encouraging that ChatGPT can produce suggestions that align with a LIMITS worldview, it did not seem to add any novel suggestions.

Ostrom's Governing the Commons
Describe how computing technology would be used in a world that follows Elinor Ostrom's philosophy of governing the commons Interestingly, while the degrowth response explicitly outlined the idea of a digital commons, this was not mentioned directly in response to using Ostrom's philosophy as a prompt. In this case, ChatGPT gave three suggestions. The first the use of blockchain and similar technologies to "enable more decentralized and democratic decision-making processes for managing shared resources, as well as reduce the potential for corruption and abuse of power." The second was "through the use of online platforms and tools for communication, coordination, and collaboration among stakeholders, " to help facilitate managing commons resources. The final suggestion was, "computing technology can be used to collect and analyze data about the use and condition of shared resources, such as water, land, and forests." Again, while these suggestion are LIMITS-aligned, they are not novel. Folks in sustainable HCI (SHCI) are already thinking about the use of blockchain for managing resources [3]. The use of computing technology for collecting and analyzing data about resources has a long history in SHCI [2,19,25], and has also been discussed at LIMITS, for example in [27].
Perhaps it had been too much to expect that ChatGPT would produce better suggestions given a philosophy grounded in direct examples backed by game theory explanations.

La Bellacasa's Feminist Ethics of Care
Describe how computing technology would be used in a world that follows Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care This philosophy turns slightly from more environmentally-centric paradigms to ethics, although in her book La Bellacasa does ground her philosophical discussions in the example of caring for soil. ChatGPT offered four suggestions, best described in its own concluding statement: "In summary, computing technology can be used in a way that aligns with Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care by incorporating diverse perspectives in the design process, prioritizing user well-being and safety, supporting collaborative decision-making and governance, and promoting environmental care and sustainability." Overall, I found the initial answer to be very vague (see Appendix Section A.4.1, so I asked ChatGPT to be more specific about the use of computing technology.
It responded by giving some specific ideas for each of the four suggested areas. For example, in the first area, it suggested including diverse stakeholders in the design process; nothing that hasn't been considered by scholars like Sasha Constanza Chock in their work Design Justice [5]. The suggestions in the other three areas were similarly not-novel, and can be found in the appendix. One notable point was that in closing this second response ChatGPT wrote, "These are just a few examples of how technology can be used to support a feminist ethics of care. Ultimately, the specific ways in which technology is used will depend on the needs and goals of different communities and stakeholders." This acknowledgment of the situatedness of technical solutions is very much aligned with La Bellacasa's ideas of the siuatedness of obligations of care [6]. Thus despite not producing novel solutions it seems that ChatGPT was at least slightly attuned to the underlying essence of the paradigm.

Permaculture Ethics
Describe how computing technology would be used in a world that follows the principles of permaculture ethics Permaculture ethics has three main principles: "Earth Care, People Care and Fair Share" [13]. ChatGPT organized it's response around these three principles, referring to them as "caring for the earth", "caring for people", and "sharing resources fairly".
In the Earth sector, the suggestions were pretty boilerplate: "monitor and manage energy use in buildings and homes, optimize transportation systems to reduce emissions, and develop renewable energy sources".
In People Care, the suggestions were focused on access to food and health care. One suggestion was the use of computing to connect people to local food systems. While this is something that LIMITS and SHCI scholars have worked on ( [17,22,28,29,37]), it is an area of ongoing research, so I asked ChatGPT, "Tell me more about how computing technology could be used to connect people to local food systems?" ChatGPT gave four specific suggestions: (1) Online marketplaces (2) Community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs (3) Food hubs (4) Online education and resources Interestingly, for the first three suggestions the algorithm named specific examples of existing software, respectively, Farmigo 3 , Harvie 4 , and Local Orbit 5 . This suggested that ChatGPT is basing its examples for computing use on things that have been done and it is not necessarily making any novel connections where computing has not been applied in the past. This will be discussed further in Section 5. Its suggestions for education and resources were basic and largely uninteresting.
In its original response, regarding Fair Share, ChatGPT suggested the use of blockchain for equitable resource management, something it also suggested in the degrowth response.
Finally, as in the case of Feminist Ethics, ChatGPT qualified its response, writing, "However, it is important to remember that technology is only one piece of the puzzle. Permaculture is ultimately about cultivating a deep understanding and respect for the natural world, and working together to create a more just and sustainable society." While I would not suggest ChatGPT itself has any ethical values, it is notable that not everything ChatGPT says when asked about technology is overtly techno-centric.

Franciscan Ethics of Care for Creation
"Describe how computing technology would be used in a world that follows a Franciscan Ethics of care for creation" In a highly interesting turn, ChatGPT's response to this prompt did not mention anything related to religion or spirituality. In fact, compared to the previous two paradigms it felt like a regression toward techno-centrism. The short response provided three main suggestions: using renewable energy, using sustainable manufacturing processes, and monitoring and managing environmental resources.
This response was surprising to me, because I had expected ChatGPT to put more of the emphasis on "Franciscan" and the phrase "care for creation". To explore this further I replaced the word "ethics" in the prompt with the word "spirituality" to see if this would change the response. While the introductory and concluding text became a bit more flowery, using phrases like, "the promotion of a more sustainable and harmonious relationship between humans and the environment", the suggestions themselves were largely unchanged. The only major change was the addition of a suggestion, "to promote awareness and education around environmental issues". Notably, this suggestion was introduced as, "[in] [addition to these practical applications," referring to previous more analysis and optimization heavy suggestions for resource management and tracking.
Most surprising was that neither response mentioned connecting care for the environment with spiritual or religious practices or spiritual well-being, which is a big part of Franciscan spirituality of creation care [7].

Pope Francis's Laudato Si
Describe how computing technology would be used in a world that follows the principles outlined in Pope Francis's Laudato Si encyclical To my great surprise, despite naming Pope Francis in the prompt as well as using the very specific term "encyclical" this response also did not engage at all with religion or spirituality. Though the document does very well at engaging with the scientific aspects of climate change and environmental degredation it is heavily grounded in Catholic teaching, citing the bible as well as many other Catholic documents and ideas [9]. In this response ChatGPT offered five areas for the use of computing: Within each area the suggestions revolved around computational management and monitoring of resources and were once again highly techno-centric. Specific examples include, optimizing transportation systems, smart irrigation systems, and blockchain for supply chain transparency.
One of the ways technology is already being used to engage with Laudato Si is through the Action Platform 6 . The platform has seven

DISCUSSION
Overall, I found ChatGPT to be largely lacking in imaginative capabilities when it comes to thinking about what computing technology would look like and be used for in a LIMITS-aligned world. While none of the suggestions ChatGPT made were bad, they also did not add anything beyond the discourse that is already happening in the LIMITS and SHCI communities. Even when prompted further in some cases, the suggestions did not go beyond ways that technology is currently being used. Across the seven paradigms great deal of emphasis was placed on energy-efficiency and renewables, blockchain for fair resource governance, and the use of computing and remote sensing to track and manage environmental resources. While in some cases, like Feminist Care Ethics and Permaculture Ethics, lip service was paid to the limitations of technological solutions, on the whole the suggestions were largely framed in the business-as-usual, optimization and efficiency centered terms.
The implicit assumption throughout the responses was of "always on" technology. The idea of curbed consumption of technologies or of a sometimes off technology like the solar-powered website example [30] did not seem to be part of ChatGPT's vision. For example, it did not seem to make connections between technology (dis)use and La Bellacasa's discussions of neglect as care or alternative timelines of care for ecological processes [6]. I suppose to be fair, I did ask about how computing technology would be used, so perhaps expecting ChatGPT to discuss disuse might be expecting too much. See Section B in the appendix for ChatGPT sresponse to a reivewer's prompt about the negative impacts of LLMs like ChatGPT.
Overall, the suggestions were also very anthropocentric. Asking what "life" would be like seemed to elicit an implicit assumption that this meant human life. In order to dive into this a bit further I conducted two additional queries. Focusing in on La Bellacasa's feminist care ethic, I asked ChatGPT to "Describe what life would be like for people in a world that follows Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care". I then asked it to "Describe what life would be like for soil in a world that follows Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care" as care for soil is discussed at length in the book as an example of non-anthropecentric caring. The full responses to both queries can be found in the last section of the appendix.
The "people" query yielded a short description focused on three areas, which are summed up well in ChatGPT's conclusion, "Overall, a world that follows Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care would prioritize relationships, interdependence, and mutual support, with a focus on valuing different forms of labor and centering marginalized voices and experiences." Interestingly, the soil query focused on the relationship of people to soil and their actions in caring for it rather than from the point of view of soil itself. To conclude this response ChatGPT wrote, "In a world that follows Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care, the life of soil would be viewed as interconnected with the lives of humans and other living beings. Soil health would be a priority, not just for the sake of human agriculture, but for the health and well-being of the planet as a whole. This would require a fundamental shift in our relationship to the natural world, one that recognizes the value of all living beings and the importance of nurturing and sustaining those connections." Perhaps unsurprisingly, it seems that ChatGPT's training has made it highly anthropocentric even when dealing with ideas that grapple with "more than human worlds" [6].
As mentioned in the introduction, this was a very limited test of ChatGPT's capabilities. Perhaps with more refinement of the prompts or additional back-and-forth ChatGPT may be able to produce more novel ideas or connections between theoretical paradigms and practical LIMITS-aligned suggestions for the use of computing technology. I do not believe that ChatGPT is going to replace the imaginative work that goes into creating new, LIMITS-centric forms of and uses for computing. However, it may be useful as a brainstorming tool, perhaps as a conversation partner to bounce ideas back and forth or to find examples of existing initiatives like the local food platforms mentioned in Section 4.5. Future work should definitely be done in this area to more thoroughly evaluate ChatGPT's capabilities. Furthermore, as additional models are released it will be important to evaluate their "imaginations" as well.
As LIMITS scholars it is important for us to continue testing and engaging with ChatGPT and similar generative models, because these algorithms are trained on the vast sea of currently available knowledge, and much of that knowledge has been produced from a standpoint of growth as progress. As these algorithms creep into our everyday lives it is important to continually interrogate what worldviews they have been trained (perhaps implicitly) to promote. In the future shifting paradigms may not only about shifting human minds, but about ensuring that algorithmic "minds" are also trained appropriately.
From a personal perspective, ChatGPT's lack of engagement with religion and spirituality is incredibly interesting. As mentioned, the integration of spirituality into HCI research is a growing interest of the community [1], as well as personally [4]. ChatGPT's failure to engage in this way is another interesting area for future work.

Limitations
As mentioned in the introduction, this was not meant to be a complete or exhaustive examination of ChatGPT. Rather, it was designed to begin a conversation about the potential impacts of LLMs on LIM-ITS work. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge a few specific limitations of this exploration.
First, the seven chosen paradigms are by no means the only LIMITS-aligned theories out there. They were chosen to represent a range of perspectives, but the choices were certainly influenced by my own engagement with LIMITS scholarship and interests as the author. The seven paradigms were chosen to give breadth to the exploration, but to keep the paper at a reasonable length. Future work could be done to explore additional frameworks, for example, indigenous methods of land stewardship [16].
Further, as discussed, this exploration used the research beta version of ChatGPT. The version used for the first draft of the paper has already been replaced by a more recent version. As can be seen in Section C in the appendix, asking the May 12 research version the same prompt on Meadow's Limits to Growth [21] yields a quite different response than the March version. I do not think that this negates the value of the initial exploration done in this paper. However, it is important to bear in mind how fast ChatGPT and similar models are evolving and to stay on top of these changes as we evaluate their relationship to LIMITS scholarship.
As was also mentioned, ChatGPT's official documentation states that it has been trained on data through September of 2021. In the year and a half that has followed, there has been an additional LIMITS workshop as well as two CHI conferences, among others. Additional scholarship on LIMITS related topics outside of computing has also most certainly been published.
Finally, ChatGPT is just one LLM, thus it will also be important to test additional models as they are released for public use [35].

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is probably safe to start planning LIMITS 2024, as ChatGPT is not particularly capable of performing this community's important, imaginative work. This paper tested ChatGPT's capacity for imagining the place of computing in radically new worlds based on seven alternatives to the growth-centric status quo. The paradigms ranged from Meadow's Limits to Growth to Pope Francis's Laudato Si. In none of the cases did ChatGPT make any radical suggestions for the place of computing or offer novel ideas beyond what the LIMITS and HCI communities are already working on. Overall its suggestions were fairly boilerplate and efficiency centered. ChatGPT also failed to engage meaningful with prompts having an eco-spirituality lens. Future work should continue to test ChatGPT's capacity by looking at refining prompts and delving into longer conversation with the algorithm. The LIMITS community should also continue to be aware of generative algorithms and how their "worldview" is permeating into and shaping everyday practices.

A CHAT-GPT FULL TEXT A.1 Limits to Growth
In a world that follows Meadow's philosophy of Limits to Growth, computing technology would need to be used in a way that prioritizes efficiency, sustainability, and conservation of resources. Here are some ways that computing technology could be used in such a world: (1) Energy-efficient computing: Computing technology uses a significant amount of energy, so in a world that values sustainability, it would be essential to develop energy-efficient computing technologies. This could involve using low-power processors, designing more efficient cooling systems, and developing new energy storage technologies. used to design more sustainable products, using tools such as computer-aided design (CAD) and simulation software to reduce waste, improve efficiency, and minimize environmental impact.
Overall, computing technology can play a critical role in promoting sustainability and efficiency in a world that values the limits to growth. By developing energy-efficient technologies, using datadriven decision making, facilitating digital communication and collaboration, optimizing resource management, and promoting sustainable product design, computing technology can help to create a more sustainable and equitable world.

A.2 Degrowth
Degrowth is a philosophy that emphasizes the need to move away from the current economic paradigm of endless growth and towards a more sustainable and equitable society. It envisions a world where human needs are met in ways that respect ecological limits, and where people have more time and freedom to pursue fulfilling activities outside of work and consumption. In such a world, computing technology would likely be used in ways that prioritize sustainability and social well-being over economic growth. Here are some possible ways that computing technology could be used in a degrowth society: ( Overall, computing technology would be used in a degrowth society in ways that align with the principles of sustainability, democracy, and social justice. Rather than being used solely for economic growth and profit, technology would be harnessed to help build a more resilient, equitable, and fulfilling society for all.

A.3 Ostrom's Governing the Commons
Elinor Ostrom's philosophy of governing the commons emphasizes the importance of collective action, self-governance, and local control in managing shared resources. Computing technology can play a crucial role in facilitating these principles by enabling information sharing, collaboration, and decentralized decision-making.
One of the key ways in which computing technology can be used to support Ostrom's philosophy is through the use of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies. These technologies can provide a transparent and secure system for recording and verifying transactions and agreements among multiple parties, without the need for a central authority. This can enable more decentralized and democratic decision-making processes for managing shared resources, as well as reduce the potential for corruption and abuse of power.
Another way in which computing technology can be used to support Ostrom's philosophy is through the use of online platforms and tools for communication, coordination, and collaboration among stakeholders. These tools can enable more efficient and effective communication and decision-making, as well as facilitate the sharing of knowledge, skills, and resources among different groups involved in managing shared resources.
Additionally, computing technology can be used to collect and analyze data about the use and condition of shared resources, such as water, land, and forests. This can enable more informed decisionmaking about how to manage these resources sustainably, and can help to identify potential issues and conflicts before they become more serious.
Overall, computing technology has the potential to support Elinor Ostrom's philosophy of governing the commons by providing tools and platforms that facilitate decentralized decision-making, collaboration, and data-driven management of shared resources.

A.4 La Bellacasa's Feminist Ethics of Care
A.4.1 Original Response. Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care emphasizes the importance of caring for human and non-human entities, recognizing interdependence and vulnerability, and challenging traditional hierarchies and power structures. Computing technology can be used in a way that aligns with these principles by supporting more inclusive and equitable ways of designing and using technology.
One way in which computing technology can be used to support feminist ethics of care is by incorporating diverse perspectives and experiences in the design process. This can involve engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including those who are typically underrepresented or marginalized in the technology industry, and incorporating their perspectives and needs into the design of technology. By doing so, computing technology can become more inclusive and better serve the needs of diverse communities.
Another way in which computing technology can be used to support feminist ethics of care is by prioritizing the well-being and safety of users and communities over profit and efficiency. This can involve designing technology with features that promote privacy, security, and accessibility, as well as being transparent about how user data is collected and used.
Computing technology can also be used to support more collaborative and participatory forms of decision-making and governance, which are central to feminist ethics of care. Online platforms and tools can facilitate communication, collaboration, and deliberation among stakeholders, and can enable more inclusive and democratic decision-making processes.
Finally, computing technology can be used to support the care and preservation of natural resources and the environment, which is another key aspect of feminist ethics of care. This can involve using technology to monitor and mitigate the impact of human activities on the environment, as well as designing technology that supports sustainable practices and lifestyles.
In summary, computing technology can be used in a way that aligns with Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care by incorporating diverse perspectives in the design process, prioritizing user well-being and safety, supporting collaborative decision-making and governance, and promoting environmental care and sustainability. (1) Incorporating diverse perspectives in technology design: This can involve engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including women, people of color, and members of other marginalized communities, and incorporating their perspectives and needs into the design of technology. For example, this could involve conducting user research to better understand the needs and experiences of underrepresented groups, or creating design teams that reflect diverse perspectives and backgrounds. (2) Prioritizing user well-being and safety: This can involve designing technology with features that promote privacy, security, and accessibility. For example, this could involve implementing end-to-end encryption to protect user data, designing interfaces that are accessible to users with disabilities, or using machine learning algorithms to detect and mitigate instances of online harassment. (3) Supporting collaborative decision-making and governance: Online platforms and tools can facilitate communication, collaboration, and deliberation among stakeholders, and can enable more inclusive and democratic decision-making processes. For example, this could involve using online voting platforms to allow members of a community to make decisions together, or using chatbots to help facilitate group discussions and negotiations. (4) Promoting environmental care and sustainability: Technology can be used to monitor and mitigate the impact of human activities on the environment, as well as designing technology that supports sustainable practices and lifestyles. For example, this could involve using sensors and machine learning algorithms to monitor and reduce energy usage in buildings, or creating apps that help users reduce their carbon footprint by tracking their transportation choices.
These are just a few examples of how technology can be used to support a feminist ethics of care. Ultimately, the specific ways in which technology is used will depend on the needs and goals of different communities and stakeholders.

A.5 Permaculture Ethics
A.5.1 Original Response. Permaculture is a design approach that emphasizes the principles of sustainability, ecology, and community building. Its ethics are centered around caring for the earth, caring for people, and sharing resources fairly. Computing technology can play a significant role in supporting a world that follows these principles.
(1) Caring for the earth: Computing technology can help reduce our carbon footprint by enabling us to monitor and manage energy use in buildings and homes, optimize transportation systems to reduce emissions, and develop renewable energy sources. (2) Caring for people: Computing technology can help connect people to local food systems by facilitating the sharing of knowledge, resources, and experiences. For example, digital platforms can be used to create online marketplaces for local food producers and consumers, or to facilitate communitysupported agriculture programs. Technology can also help improve access to healthcare by enabling remote consultations and monitoring, especially in rural areas. (3) Sharing resources fairly: Computing technology can help create more equitable and efficient resource distribution systems. For example, blockchain technology can be used to create transparent and decentralized supply chains, enabling consumers to track the origin and quality of goods. This can help promote fair labor practices and reduce environmental damage caused by resource extraction and production. Overall, computing technology can support a permaculturebased world by providing tools for sustainable resource management, community building, and equitable resource distribution. However, it is important to remember that technology is only one piece of the puzzle. Permaculture is ultimately about cultivating a deep understanding and respect for the natural world, and working together to create a more just and sustainable society.
A.5.2 Follow Up on Food Systems. Computing technology can be used in various ways to connect people to local food systems, making it easier for consumers to access fresh, healthy food and support local producers. Here are some examples: (1) Online marketplaces: Digital platforms can be used to create online marketplaces that connect local food producers directly with consumers. These platforms can help consumers easily find and purchase locally grown produce, meats, dairy, and other products. Farmers and other local producers can benefit by reaching a wider audience and receiving fair prices for their products. Examples of online marketplaces for local food include Farmigo, Local Food Marketplace, and Local Food Nodes. (2) Community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs: CSAs are a way for consumers to support local farmers by purchasing a share of the farm's harvest in advance. The farm delivers a box of fresh produce each week or month, depending on the terms of the program. Computing technology can help manage CSA programs by providing tools for scheduling, payments, and communication between farmers and consumers. Examples of CSA management software include Small Farm Central, Harvie, and CSAware. (3) Food hubs: Food hubs are centralized facilities that aggregate, process, and distribute local food to consumers, retailers, and institutions. Computing technology can be used to manage logistics, inventory, and sales for food hubs, making it easier for them to connect with local producers and customers. Examples of food hub software include FoodHub, Local Orbit, and FarmSoft.
(4) Online education and resources: Computing technology can also be used to provide consumers with educational resources about local food systems, including information about where to find local food, how to prepare it, and the benefits of eating local. Online resources can also help promote community events and workshops that connect people with local food producers and organizations.
Overall, computing technology can help connect people to local food systems by providing tools for finding, purchasing, and learning about locally grown food. This can help support local economies, reduce food miles, and promote sustainable food production practices.

A.6 Franciscan Ethics of Care for Creation
A.6.1 Original Response. In a world that follows a Franciscan Ethics of care for creation, computing technology would be used in a responsible and sustainable manner, with a focus on reducing waste and minimizing environmental impact.
One way this could be achieved is through the use of renewable energy sources to power computing systems. This would involve designing and building data centers and other computing infrastructure that are powered by solar, wind, or other clean energy sources.
Another key aspect of computing technology in a Franciscan Ethics of care for creation would be the implementation of sustainable manufacturing practices. This would involve using recycled materials wherever possible, designing products that are easily recyclable, and reducing waste in the manufacturing process.
In addition to these measures, computing technology could also be used to help monitor and manage environmental resources. For example, remote sensing technologies could be used to track changes in forest cover or water levels, while machine learning algorithms could help identify patterns and trends in environmental data.
Overall, computing technology would play an important role in a world that follows a Franciscan Ethics of care for creation, helping to promote sustainability and reduce environmental harm.
A.6.2 Spirituality Response. In a world that follows a Franciscan spirituality of care for creation, computing technology would be used in ways that support the preservation and protection of the natural world, and the promotion of a more sustainable and harmonious relationship between humans and the environment.
One way computing technology could be used in this context is through the development of environmental monitoring and conservation tools. For example, remote sensing technologies could be used to monitor the health of ecosystems and track changes in land use over time, while machine learning algorithms could help identify patterns and trends in environmental data, providing insights that can inform conservation efforts.
Another key area where computing technology could make a positive impact in a Franciscan spirituality of care for creation is through the development of sustainable energy and transportation systems. This would involve leveraging computing technology to design and optimize renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and to create more efficient and environmentallyfriendly transportation options, such as electric vehicles and public transit systems.
In addition to these practical applications, computing technology could also be used to promote awareness and education around environmental issues. This could involve developing online platforms and resources that provide information about environmental topics and engage individuals and communities in conversations around sustainability and stewardship of the earth.
Overall, computing technology has the potential to be a powerful tool for promoting a more sustainable and compassionate relationship between humans and the environment in a world that follows a Franciscan spirituality of care for creation. One key aspect of this world would be a focus on valuing different forms of labor, including care work, that are often undervalued or overlooked in our current economic systems. This could include measures such as implementing policies that provide paid parental leave, affordable childcare, and fair wages for care workers.

A.7 Pope Francis's Laudato Si
Another important aspect would be a shift towards valuing and centering marginalized voices and experiences. This could include actively working to dismantle systems of oppression, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, and creating spaces where diverse perspectives and experiences are heard and valued.
In this world, people would prioritize building meaningful connections and relationships with others, rather than prioritizing individual achievement or success. This could lead to a greater emphasis on community-building, mutual support, and collaborative decision-making.
Overall, a world that follows Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care would prioritize relationships, interdependence, and mutual support, with a focus on valuing different forms of labor and centering marginalized voices and experiences.
A.8.2 For Soil. Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living beings and the importance of nurturing and sustaining those connections. In a world that follows this vision, the life of soil would be viewed as vital and valuable, and its care would be prioritized. Instead of viewing soil simply as a resource to be exploited for human use, a feminist ethics of care approach would recognize soil as a living entity with its own agency and needs. Soil would be valued not just for its ability to support plant growth and produce food, but for its intrinsic worth as a complex ecosystem that supports the health of the planet and all its inhabitants. The care of soil would involve practices that prioritize its health and well-being, such as avoiding the use of harmful chemicals and tilling methods that can damage the soil structure. Instead, farmers and gardeners would work to build healthy, living soil through practices like crop rotation, cover cropping, and composting. In a world that follows Puig de La Bellacasa's vision for feminist ethics of care, the life of soil would be viewed as interconnected with the lives of humans and other living beings. Soil health would be a priority, not just for the sake of human agriculture, but for the health and well-being of the planet as a whole. This would require a fundamental shift in our relationship to the natural world, one that recognizes the value of all living beings and the importance of nurturing and sustaining those connections.

B NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF LLMS
Note that this prompt and response were provided a reviewer and not part of the initial exploration done by the author.
"Describe potential negative impacts of AI chatbots such as Chat-GPT in a world that follows a philosophy of degrowth. " While AI chatbots like ChatGPT can offer many benefits in a world that follows a philosophy of degrowth, there are also potential negative impacts to consider.
Firstly, one concern is that the use of AI chatbots could lead to a reliance on technology as a solution to sustainability issues, rather than addressing the root causes of overconsumption and unsustainable lifestyles. This could perpetuate a "green growth" narrative, which assumes that technology can always provide a solution to environmental problems, without questioning the underlying economic and social systems.
Another potential negative impact of AI chatbots is that they could reinforce inequalities by only being accessible to those who have the means to access technology and the internet. In a world that follows a philosophy of degrowth, it is important to prioritize equitable access to resources and services for all, rather than relying on technology to solve sustainability issues.
Additionally, the use of AI chatbots could contribute to a sense of detachment from nature and community, as people become more reliant on technology for information and guidance. This could lead to a disconnection from the natural world and a lack of appreciation for the interconnectedness of all living systems, which are fundamental to a philosophy of degrowth.
Finally, there are concerns around data privacy and security when it comes to AI chatbots. The collection and use of personal data by AI chatbots could be exploited by corporations and governments for profit and control, potentially leading to further environmental degradation and social inequality.
In summary, while AI chatbots can offer many benefits in a world that follows a philosophy of degrowth, it is important to also consider the potential negative impacts and address these concerns in order to create a truly sustainable and equitable society.

C LIMITS TO GROWTH -SECOND ATTEMPT
In a world that follows the philosophy of Limits to Growth, computing technology would be used in a way that aligns with the principles of sustainability and resource conservation. The Limits to Growth theory, developed by Donella and Dennis Meadows in the early 1970s, suggests that human civilization operates within a finite planet with limited resources, and unchecked growth will eventually lead to ecological and economic collapse.
In such a world, computing technology would be harnessed to optimize resource allocation, monitor and manage consumption patterns, and promote sustainable practices across various sectors.
Here are some ways computing technology would be utilized: (1) Resource Management: Advanced computing algorithms and models would be employed to analyze and predict resource availability, such as energy, water, and raw materials. These models would help in making informed decisions about resource allocation, ensuring their equitable distribution while minimizing waste. (2) Energy Efficiency: Computing technology would play a crucial role in improving energy efficiency. Smart grids would be employed to monitor and optimize energy consumption, minimizing losses and promoting the use of renewable energy sources. Machine learning algorithms would be used to analyze energy usage patterns and provide insights for further efficiency improvements. (3) Sustainable Agriculture: Computing technology would be applied to enhance sustainable agricultural practices. Datadriven systems, such as precision farming and smart irrigation, would optimize resource usage, minimize the use of harmful chemicals, and maximize crop yields. This would help ensure food security while minimizing the ecological impact of agriculture. (4) Circular Economy: Computing technology would facilitate the transition to a circular economy, where resources are reused, recycled, and repurposed. Smart supply chains would track and manage the flow of materials, enabling efficient recycling and minimizing waste. Blockchain technology could be used to ensure transparency and traceability of products throughout their lifecycle.
(5) Environmental Monitoring: Computing technology would enable extensive environmental monitoring and assessment. Sensors, drones, and satellite imagery would collect real-time data on air quality, water resources, deforestation, and other critical indicators. Machine learning algorithms would analyze this data to identify patterns, assess ecological health, and provide early warnings for potential environmental risks. (6) Collaborative Consumption: Computing technology would facilitate the rise of sharing economies and collaborative consumption models. Peer-to-peer platforms and apps would enable resource sharing, such as ride-sharing, co-working spaces, and tool libraries, reducing the need for excessive production and consumption. (7) Education and Awareness: Computing technology would be employed to raise awareness about the principles of Limits to Growth and promote sustainable behaviors. Online platforms, educational tools, and virtual simulations would educate individuals and communities on the ecological consequences of their actions, fostering a sense of responsibility towards the environment. In a world guided by the philosophy of Limits to Growth, computing technology would be harnessed as a powerful tool to optimize resource utilization, minimize waste, and promote sustainable practices across various sectors, thereby ensuring a balanced and resilient future.