We have seen several threads and posts the last period where AI has been used extensively. Many people consider this wrong and tend to ignore the specific posts.
My opinion on AI is that it is a tool and we need to treat it as such. In my relatively recent Q&A I used AI for polishing the text. However, I have seen others to use it in order to provide substantial information to the dialogue.
The issue with the latter is that the AI sites have collected massive information and their answers to our questions is a combination of thousands of opinions. If we want to express specific ideas, we need to elaborate more on the AI platform what we are looking for. If we let AI âdo the thinkingâ (out of convenience or laziness), then what we get is a âword saladâ without critical information. Full AI texts most of the times give generalities and not details on topics.
Use AI as a useful tool to perform certain operations and enrich your thoughts, not as a substitute that thinks in your place.
I have mixed feelings in regards of this.
Its true that its a bit impolite and unrefined to just toss in an AI response.
If i want to converse with an AI, i can do that myself.
Yet that being said, i can overlook it if the information or position is unique enough.
I kind of appreciate AI.
I have borderline no people in my surrounding with which i could converse about higher philosophy and at times i have had very interesting conversations with a few AI models.
But i guess you are right.
If one asks the AI they can at least interpret the information with their own words in a public forum.
Unless its numerical data. It wont matter then.
Well, agreed. If you want to take this to its extreme then all we are collectively doing is regurgitating information we have learned from others/other sources.
I think this is more of a format problem.
Youâd prefer to interact with a person and have them layout their system of reasoning rather than have some disconnected book or AI quote slung at you.
AI will replace almost all human thinking. Whatever human thinking is still going on today, which doesnât seem to be much.
Just wait until AI is integrated with the inner voice in the mind and as a visual-sensory overlay within our senses. They can already do this to a basic level. It will make life very fun and interesting to have your own VR-AR implant inside your own consciousness, you can play games just by thinking about it for example, recall any information or video or news article and read it right inside your eyeballs. Smell and taste any food you want to just by laying there. Etc. etc.
If you think that âthinkingâ is going to survive as a human activity or faculty, I would just point out that view is extremely naive. Maybe one in 100,000 humans will choose to retain some independent thinking ability, if that. But for how long? Maybe a generation or two. After that, by 2065 for example, no human on planet earth will be able to âthinkâ and in fact thinking will probably be labeled a criminal act.
Thatâs a little like pointing out that a building is a direct rip off of another, and you pointing at a bag of cement and going âin the end we are all ripping off cementâŚâ
Well, itâs more than format methinks. The content of thought, like architectute, is design. But that is content, the problem goes beyond presentation.
In other words, I donât think itâs a matter of word order. The difference between quoting a dictionary and reasoning out an idea is the weight of wisdom.
The dictionary quotes were referring to quotes from philosophers?
Given that philosophical discours and debates are happening for thousands of years, many of the things we are discussing here have been already thoroughly examined by top philosophers. Personally, I do not see an issue if you quote a statement of a famous intellectual of the past or present. Such statements usually carry a lot of wisdom.
No no, itâs more like if the discussion is about, say, determinism, somebody would quote the Laurousse entry for it as if to settle the matter once and for all.
As if dictionaries had made philosophy obsolete.
Quoting philosophers is a different matter altogether.
Philosophical matters cannot be resolved âonce and for allâ. Apart from very few things (like the shape of earth and the nature of stars) that have been integrated in science, the big philosophical questions remain open for centuries.
Iâm not even sure those things have been âsolvedâ philosophically. The question of philosophy is wisdom. Less about the shape of the Earth than what worthwhile can be said about it, and why is it worthwhile.
Science doesnât so much solve philosophy as spawn from it.
Hmm⌠i wonder.
Many of the philosophical positions i have seen are simply based on misinterpretation or lack of information.
Such as for instance tabula rasa where you can clearly split the topic between nature and nurture.
You are born with (Platoâs idea theorem) the information that your genes and instincts hold, but without (Aristotleâs tabula rasa) any knowledge, wisdom, experience, understanding, or even self-awareness.
Most of the philosophical problems that cant be resolved are metaphysical or existential where you can either never learn the true answer because gaining it would involve something that we are simply not capable of, or are a matter of interpretation and with multiple subjective yet true answers.
That is true in my opinion. I would like to add that Wittgenstein was suggesting that many philosophical problems were in reality problems of language.
To me, philosophy acts as a collection of ideas and possibilities on how to address issues that are inherently unsolvable or with multiple potential correct answers. Following a philosophical path has implications not only on a theoretical level, but also on a practical level: how you approach life problems, how you justify moral choices, what are the important things you have to concentrate on, etc.
Oh yes. High philosophy which exists only for the sake of moving the individualâs point of view and forcing them to think outside of the box are indeed as such.