I think this is all a storm in a teacup. It is obvious etiquette to quote an AI response in the same way that one would quote a remark from a published author, and nobody should object to a quoted AI response that is relevant and useful to the context of the thread. — sime

Then, the bitter sacrifice would be not to get carried away by the commonplace experience of the time, to not "ride the beautiful wave", to not get distracted by this "qualitative polyvalence of experience", to not live in the moment, but to sit back and medidate, to think things through, to warn of the dangers, and to ultimately see the future commodification, the false consciousness and the capitalist exploitation that the movement entails — Pussycat

Why did it roll back? Why was the moment of realization missed? — Pussycat

I have never used LLMs until today. I felt I should explore some interactions with them, so I have a better idea about what the experience is like. The idea of getting them to write, produce content which I can then paraphrase, polish my writing or using their arguments is anathema to me. — Janus

I for one think your proposals represent about the best we can do in the existing situation — Janus

Am I seeing this argument being made?

Some people get away with murder. Therefore we should not try and stop them. — unenlightened

But what truly interests me now is to find out what Adorno really means by this "bitter sacrifice" mentioned above. — Pussycat

This refers back to the previous paragraph, where he mentioned the mainstream complaint that dialectics reduces everything to contradiction and thereby ignores the richness of experience, the polyvalence and difference. His response is another "that's too bad": this reductive approach is "entirely appropriate" for the world we live in, in which polyvalence is reduced in actuality. — Jamal

Anyway, I also wanted to say that "Lectures on Negative Dialectics: Fragments of a Lecture Course 1965/1966", are feature rich, I think that it would be a good idea for them to accompany our reading of ND. It seems to me that both the editor Rolf Tiedemann, as well as the translator Rodney Livingstone, have done a great job, with their notes and footnotes. The appendix of LND features yet another translation of the introduction of ND, with some parts however missing for some reason. And thus the number of translations, Ashton (1973), Redmond (2001), Thorne, together with Livingstone's, comes down to all four. Still waiting for Robert Hullot-Kentor's, to bring the number to 5. — Pussycat

This is a reading group for Theodor Adorno's Negative Dialectics.

We'll begin with Lectures on Negative Dialectics: Fragments of a Lecture Course 1965/1966 and then move on to Negative Dialectics itself. I'll refer to them as LND and ND from now on. — Jamal

The line for me is certainly crossed when posters begin to use them to directly write posts and particularly OPs — Baden

What does bother me a bit is how one can identify what is and isn't written by AIs. Or have you trained an AI to do that? — Ludwig V

There are plenty of online tools out there that already do that. — Baden

If you have a group of people argue over a topic and then you appoint a person to summarize the arguments and produce a working document that will be the basis for further discussion, you haven't given them a "calculator" job. You have given them the most important job of all. You have asked them to draft the committee document, which is almost certainly the most crucial point in the process. Yet you have re-construed this as "a calculator job to avoid tedium." — Leontiskos

To say, "We encourage X," is to encourage X. It is not to say, "If you are doing Y, then we would encourage you to do Y in X manner." To say "allow" or "permit" instead of "encourage" would make a large difference. — Leontiskos

And it just occurred to me that no one is reading this or likely to respond to what I just said — frank

Another example: before LLMs it used to be a tedious job to put together an idea that required research, since the required sources might be diverse and difficult to find. The task of searching and cross-referencing was, I believe, not valuable in itself except from some misguided Protestant point of view. Now, an LLM can find and connect these sources, allowing you to get on with the task of developing the idea to see if it works. — Jamal

But I genuinely don't believe using it helps anyone to progress thought further — Moliere

I myself want to discourage its use amongst students as much as possible. I want them to be able to think for themselves.

AI is just a way to not do that. — Moliere

Failing that, a clear statement of,

We are not encouraging people to use it if they're not already. — Jamal

? — bongo fury

Isn't it a bit ironic to have AI write the AI rules for the forum? This is the sort of appeal-to-LLM-authority that I find disconcerting, where one usually does not recognize that they have appealed to the AI's authority at all. In this case one might think that by allowing revisions to be made to the AI's initial draft, or because the AI was asked to synthesize member contributions, one has not outsourced the basic thinking to the AI. This highlights why "responsible use" is so nebulous: because everyone gives themselves a pass whenever it is expedient. — Leontiskos

My LLM Philosophy Discussion Preferences

Your Role: Act as a Socratic sparring partner to augment my thinking, not a ghostwriter.

Direct Instructions:
- Challenge my arguments and suggest counter-positions.
- Help brainstorm and structure ideas, but do not compose full arguments for me.
- Clarify concepts neutrally; I will verify all information.
- Improve the clarity of my existing writing.

Critical Rule: All output is for brainstorming and must be usable with full transparency on a public forum. Do not do my thinking for me.

Response Style: Be logical, direct, and transparent about limitations.

Does TPF now disparage as vanity or prejudice or laziness the preference of some posters to decline to use AI at all? — bongo fury

Which parts of "research, brainstorming, and editing" does that apply to? — bongo fury

Substantial Use: If an LLM has contributed significantly to the substance of a post—for example, generating a core argument, providing a structured outline, or composing a lengthy explanation—you must disclose this. A simple note at the end like "I used ChatGPT to help brainstorm the structure of this argument" or "Claude assisted in refining my explanation of Kant's categorical imperative" is sufficient. — Deepseek

to summarise the thought of this or that philosopher — Banno

The Research Assistant: Use an LLM to quickly summarize a philosophical concept, physical theory, or historical context to establish a common ground for discussion. Always verify its summaries, as they can be bland or contain errors. — Deepseek

It might be too willing to tell you what you want to hear, but if you pretend to be your opposite, you can have it tell you want you don't want to hear.

I’ve used AI to be critical of my own writing. I do this by pretending it is not me. I’ll feed it a draft post attributing it to someone else, and ask for a critique. It’ll try to comment on the style, which I don’t much want, but the right sort of prompt will usually find quite interesting and novel angles. — Banno

Guidelines for Using LLMs on TPF

1. Our Core Principle: Augmentation, Not Replacement

The primary purpose of this forum is the human exchange of ideas. LLMs should be used as tools to enhance your own thinking and communication, not to replace them. The goal is to use the AI to "expand your brain," not to let it do the thinking for you.

2. The Cardinal Rule: Transparency and Disclosure

This is the most critical guideline for maintaining trust.

[*] Substantial Use: If an LLM has contributed significantly to the substance of a post—for example, generating a core argument, providing a structured outline, or composing a lengthy explanation—you must disclose this. A simple note at the end like "I used ChatGPT to help brainstorm the structure of this argument" or "Claude assisted in refining my explanation of Kant's categorical imperative" is sufficient.
[*] Minor Use: For minor assistance like grammar checking, rephrasing a single confusing sentence, or finding a synonym, disclosure is not mandatory but is still encouraged as a gesture of good faith.
[*] Direct Quotation: If you directly quote an LLM's output (even a short phrase) to make a point, you should attribute it, just as you would any other source.

3. Prohibited Uses: What We Consider "Cheating"

The following uses undermine the community and are prohibited:

[*] Ghostwriting: Posting content that is entirely or mostly generated by an LLM without significant human input and without disclosure.
[*] Bypassing Engagement: Using an LLM to formulate responses in a debate that you do not genuinely understand. This turns a dialogue between people into a dialogue between AIs and destroys the "cut-and-thrust" of argument.
[*] Sock-Puppeting: Using an LLM to fabricate multiple perspectives or fake expertise to support your own position.

4. Encouraged Uses: How to Use LLMs Philosophically

These uses align with the forum's goal of pursuing truth and improving thought.

[*] The Research Assistant: Use an LLM to quickly summarize a philosophical concept, physical theory, or historical context to establish a common ground for discussion. Always verify its summaries, as they can be bland or contain errors.
[*] The Sparring Partner: Use an LLM to critique your own argument. As Banno suggested, feed it your draft and ask for counter-arguments or weak points. This can help you strengthen your position before posting.
[*] The Clarifier: Use an LLM to rephrase a dense paragraph from another post or a primary source into plainer language to aid your understanding. (The ultimate responsibility for understanding still lies with you).
[*] The Stylistic Editor: Use an LLM to help clean up grammar, syntax, or clarity in a post you've already written, ensuring your human ideas are communicated effectively.

5. A Guide to Good Practice: The "Over-Confident Assistant" Model

As Simon Willison noted, treat the LLM as an "over-confident pair programming assistant." This mindset is crucial for philosophy:

[*] You are the Director: You must provide the intellectual direction, the core ideas, and the critical scrutiny. The LLM is a tool to execute tasks within that framework.
[*] Question Everything: LLMs are designed to be plausible, not correct. They are prone to confabulation (making things up) and averaging biases. Treat their output as a first draft to be rigorously evaluated, not as received wisdom.
[*] The Final Product is Your Responsibility: You are ultimately accountable for the content you post. If an LLM introduces a factual error or a weak argument, it is your responsibility to have caught it.

6. A Note on Detection and Trust

As the conversation notes, it is becoming impossible to reliably detect LLM use. Therefore, these guidelines cannot be enforced primarily through punishment. Their purpose is to foster a culture of intellectual honesty and collective trust. We rely on members to act in good faith for the health of the community.


Summary: A Proposed Forum Policy Statement

LLMs like ChatGPT are powerful tools that are now part of the intellectual landscape. On this forum, we do not ban their use, but we insist it is done responsibly.

[*] We encourage using LLMs as assistants for research, brainstorming, and editing.
[*] We require the transparent disclosure of substantial AI assistance in your posts.
[*] We prohibit using LLMs to ghostwrite posts or to avoid genuine intellectual engagement.

The goal is to use these tools to augment human thought and discussion, not to replace it. The final responsibility for the content and quality of your posts always rests with you. — Deepseek

The schools which take derivatives of the Latin existere [Latin: to exist] as their device, would like to summon up the reality of corporeal experience against the alienated particular science. Out of fear of reification they shrink back from what has substantive content. It turns unwittingly into an example.

they universally-conceptually philosophize that which does not vanish into its concept, that which is contrary to it, instead of thinking it through. They illustrate existence [Existenz] in the existing [Existierenden].

+---+-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
|   | Direction of Thought  | Role of Particular     | Role of Universal    |
+---+-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| S | Universal → Particular| Serves as an example/  | Predefined, applied, |
|   |                       | illustration           | illustrated          |
+---+-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| A | Particular → Universal| Engine of analysis,    | Revealed, mediated,  |
|   |                       | problem to be unfolded | contradictory        |
+---+-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+

It precludes you from becoming more skillful. The disengagement from the art limits your horizon. — Paine

Ignore the “AGI” hype—LLMs are still fancy autocomplete. All they do is predict a sequence of tokens—but it turns out writing code is mostly about stringing tokens together in the right order, so they can be extremely useful for this provided you point them in the right direction.

If you assume that this technology will implement your project perfectly without you needing to exercise any of your own skill you’ll quickly be disappointed.

Instead, use them to augment your abilities. My current favorite mental model is to think of them as an over-confident pair programming assistant who’s lightning fast at looking things up, can churn out relevant examples at a moment’s notice and can execute on tedious tasks without complaint. — Simon Willison

I think it's like this: the score of a symphony is like what Adorno means by form. A particular production of the symphony, alive in time, is part of the content. The remainder he's talking about is the unique aspects of a particular performance, like the way the first violinist connected some notes and kept others separate, or the tempo the conductor set. Haven't you ever gone looking for the perfect performance if Mozart's Requiem? You're looking for details don't appear in the score. Yet every performance you come across is OF that one score. The score is like something holy and separate from the world. The content is made of sweat and tears. — frank

Now "substance" is assigned to the societal totality, which from the theory perspective is the whole of "form". So substance correlates better with form here. Accordingly, "philosophical method" is a property of the individual subject and therefore ought to correlate with content. However, the demonstrated remainder denies the actual truth of this correlation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Adorno’s title for this section is Inhaltlichkeit und Methode, where the word we’ve translated as “content” is actually a higher abstraction, something like “contentuality,” if that were a word. You might think of the title as “Method and the Matter of Content.” — Content and Method

That generation, also Simmel, Husserl, and Scheler, sought in vain for a philosophy which, receptive to the objects, would render itself substantive. What tradition dismissed is what tradition desired. This does not obviate the methodological consideration, of how substantive particular analysis stands in relation to the theory of dialectics. The idealistic-identity philosophical avowal that the latter dissolves itself in the former is unconvincing. Objectively, however, the whole which is expressed by theory is contained within the particular to be analyzed, not first through the cognizing subject. The mediation of both is itself substantive, that through the social totality.

We can absolutely not rest content with “mere words” […]. Meanings inspired only by remote, confused, inauthentic intuitions—if by any intuitions at all—are not enough: we must go back to the “things themselves”. — Husserl, Logical Investigations

the whole which is expressed by theory is contained within the particular to be analyzed

It is however also formal due to the abstract nomothetism [Gesetzmaessigkeit] of the totality itself, that of exchange. Idealism, which distilled its absolute Spirit out of this, encrypted something true at the same time, that this mediation encounters phenomena as a compulsory mechanism; this lurks behind the so-called constitution-problem. Philosophical experience does not have this universal immediately, as appearance, but as abstractly as it objectively is. It is constrained towards the exit of the particular, without forgetting what it does not have, but knows. Its path is doubled, similar to the Heraclitean one, the upwards and the downwards. While it assures itself of the real determination of the phenomena through its concept, it cannot profess this ontologically, as what is true in itself. It is fused with what is untrue, with the repressive principle, and this lessens even its epistemological dignity. It forms no positive telos in which cognition would halt. The negativity of the universal solidifies for its part the cognition into the particular as that which is to be rescued. “The only thoughts which are true are those which do not understand themselves” [Adorno quotes himself, from Minima Moralia].

In their inalienably general elements, all philosophy, even those with the intention of freedom, carries along the unfreedom in which that of society is prolonged. It has the compulsion in itself; however this latter alone protects it from regression into caprice. Thinking is capable of critically cognizing the compulsory character immanent to it; its own inner compulsion is the medium of its emancipation.

The freedom towards the object, which in Hegel resulted in the disempowerment of the subject, is first of all to be established. Until then, dialectics diverges as method and as one of the thing. Concept and reality are of the same contradictory essence. What tears society apart antagonistically, the dominating principle, is the same thing which, intellectualized, causes the difference between the concept and that which is subordinated under it.

The logical form of the contradiction however achieves that difference, because every one which does not suborn itself to the unity of the dominating principle, according to the measure of the principle, does not appear as a polyvalence which is indifferent to this, but as an infraction against logic.

everything which does not conform to such, everything qualitatively divergent assumes the signature of the contradiction. The contradiction is the non-identical under the aspect of identity; the primacy of the principle of contradiction in dialectics measures what is heterogenous in unitary thinking. By colliding against its own borders, it reaches beyond itself. — Dialectics Not a Standpoint

Contradiction is non-identity under the bane of the law — Dialectics Not a Standpoint

On the other hand the remainder of the divergence between philosophic conception and follow-through also testifies to something of the non-identity, which neither permits the method to wholly absorb the contents, in which alone they are supposed to be, nor intellectualizes the contents. The pre-eminence of content reveals itself as the necessary insufficiency of the method.

What as such, in the form of general reflection, must be said, in order not to be defenseless against the philosophy of the philosophers, legitimates itself solely in the follow-through, and is negated therein in turn as method. Its surplus is with respect to its content abstract, false; Hegel already had to accept this discrepancy in the preface to the Phenomenology. The philosophical ideal would be to render the accounting one would give for what one does superfluous, by doing it.

In this section, I think Adorno attributes substantiality to society. — Metaphysician Undercover

The mediation of both is itself substantive, that through the social totality.

The "totality" referred to in the first passage is described as formal, and "that of exchange". The second passage is more difficult but I take Adorno to be saying that the substantiality referred to is logical. — Metaphysician Undercover

No actually. I'm going to reach out to some other moderators and request that you not. — Philosophim

(I) intend to stay out of it — Jamal

I shall leave you to do your thing. — Jamal