Maybe you two have special skills. — Banno

Yes, yes, we do... None of which are helpful or even relevant, sadly.

None of which are helpful or even relevant, sadly. — Baden

The man with the golden touch who would be king in one world, would be but another lowly bricklayer in another whose streets are paved with such.

Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable now that Al will become in the near future THE general authority. So, thinking will no longer be a practical necessity. We could even draw a logical line from human laziness to a situation where people simply plug their "personality" into a mobile AI, stick it on themselves, and allow it to do all their conversing for them. — Baden

I very much agree.

All we can do is be the change we want to see. — Baden

Okay, fair. Still, I want to say that the canons for reasoning that we have developed as a species are reliable and recognizable. What is at stake now is a particular kind of appeal to authority: appeal to LLM. Our canons include sound principles for determining when an appeal to authority is permissible and when it is not, but such principles will be challenged by the advent of AI.

TPF already has a precedent for disallowing or at least discouraging certain sources for appeals to authority, particularly sources which are deemed morally inappropriate . I would suggest that it is at least possible to establish a precedent for discouraging the "appeal to LLM" move, especially given the soft and flexible nature of TPF rules. And perhaps the current rule already does this to some extent.

(More specifically, I would say that our canons for reasoning generally require that the inferential steps used to reach a conclusion be made publicly available. A post which leverages an LLM in a way that is consistent with this principle would not be beyond the pale, given that such a post would not merely be appealing to the LLM as a blind authority. Yet a post which relies on an LLM in a way that is "blind" and inconsistent with this principle would be beyond the pale.)

I very much agree. — Leontiskos

It cannot think. It is just a tool.

An idiot using a hammer is still an idiot using a hammer. Destructive rather than constructive. Authority? Nope, none.

Well, noone ever said you cannot discuss with AI and collect your thoughts and feelings. I think they mostly don't want you to ask a question and then just copy and paste direct from the AI. But, do be aware AI make mistakes too and could mislead you down a path of AI hallucinations.

In otherwords, you probably souldn't use it as an authority, but instead use it as a personal assistant. — DifferentiatingEgg

Sometimes it is impossible for me to be good and do the right thing, because there is another right thing that trumps the first right thing. This morning, in a thread about education, I used AI. But darn it! I feel passionately that we need to know some things if humanity is going to make the right decisions. The AI I used may not be 100% correct, and I said I disagree with one of the points. Nothing is going to be 100% perfect.

However, we can share social agreements such as the right to bear arms, but then we have to work on agreements about our behavior. Is there a right way to use AI? Can I prove I have social agreement when I am explaining a problem or solution? Because what I believe is the most important information is from very old books, my point of view is different from all others. Because what I say is different, it is assumed I am wrong and do not know what I am talking about. I feel pretty alone with this burden, and that makes AI useful in making my point.

AI isn't worse than any other piece of information. If you want to see really bad, bad information, go for a religious explanation. AI is not a false god. It is a useful tool. How we use it might matter but it will never trump religion for being problematic.

And even if I were speaking to God himself, I would have my own opinion, and I would tell him I think he did a few things wrong.

It cannot think. It is just a tool.

An idiot using a hammer is still an idiot using a hammer. Destructive rather than constructive. Authority? Nope, none. — I like sushi

An idiot using a medical book is no better than an idiot using a hammer, but we aren't going to ban medical books, are we?

Something very frightening is happening today. People want more and more control, and this destroys not only our liberty but our ability to manage our liberty as well. I harp and harp about education, because it is essential to our safety and liberty. Ignoring the importance of education and trying to protect everyone by taking away their liberty is a dark cloud over us right now. I think we are experiencing how Dark Ages happen.

Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable now that Al will become in the near future THE general authority. So, thinking will no longer be a practical necessity. We could even draw a logical line from human laziness to a situation where people simply plug their "personality" into a mobile AI, stick it on themselves, and allow it to do all their conversing for them. — Baden

This is why I argue against education for technology. I think the world you want requires a liberal education. I have been alone with this argument for many years. I could die in peace if I were not the only one fighting for liberal education.

Athena, I think you are misunderstanding how AI works. When you ask AI to respond to an argument, it is expressing its own opinion. Not your opinion. The forum wants discussion between humans, not between AI. Using AI to refine your posts, or correct spelling is fine, as it is still your opinion being expressed. But if AI writes the response, you aren't expressing your opinion; you are expressing the AI's opinion. AI is known to be very overconfident, making up information when it cannot find any on a subject. By posting an AI response, you are posting the opinion of an unempathetic, brainless, untrustworthy robot. The forum does not want this. — Wolfy48

Oh please, AI does not have its own opinion because it does not have a personality. AI is a lot of information, and the machine can organize that information. It has a much broader source of information than any person can have. Therefore, it is more useful than asking your friends for information.

It is important to keep things in perspective. It is a tool and it must remain a tool. BUT WE CAN MAKE IT A TERRIBLE POWER OVER US. I believe education for technology has humans in a very dangerous position right now.

What is the rule about talking politics? :nerd: I know, I need to check with the ancient philosophers and see what they have to say bout making ourselves subservient to a machine. Oh, maybe that won't work. According to a professor I absolutely hate, information older than 10 years is useless, and so are the people who believe that crap.

But aside from that, most people here are very charitable and understanding as far as their time and intellect goes into explaining things if you simply ask with polite inquisitiveness or curiosity. — Outlander

This forum is much, much better than most. And like you, I am often overwhelmed by better-informed people. Curious, how people intent on thinking can also be the nicest people. Now we just need an education system that encourages this. I think some places are developing a better understanding of what the young need to learn. I have hope we will no more let AI rule over us than we would allow a pope or king to rule over us. What we do depends on how we are educated.

... It just gets tiresome. Everything is amazing. Let's leave it at that. — Outlander

:smirk:

All we can do is be[come?] the change we want to see. — Baden

:up:

I'd rather lose on argument than bluff my way through one. That's the beginning of outsourcing your personality.

I.e. dogmatism (or superstition).

The end is human jello permanently plugged into AI-Tik Tok, gurgling its way happily to death.

:clap: :lol: Welcome to the Matrix!

... liberal education ... — Athena

Funny thing about "liberal education" is those few with the most of it have always, in theory and practice, substantially denied it to the many who need it to help liberate themselves. Modern history shows that "liberal education" (as e.g. Jefferson / Paine / Marx suggest) is only a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for liberty of the many.

This is why I argue against education for technology. I think the world you want requires a liberal education. I have been alone with this argument for many years. I could die in peace if I were not the only one fighting for liberal education. — Athena

We are mostly singing from the same hymn sheet then. But I think it's OK to educate kids in how to use technology if they understand its situatedness with regard to subjectivity. And that can start simply by telling them: This stuff is not just something you use, but that if you use it, will use you. Here's how...

[

Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable now that Al will become in the near future THE general authority. — Baden

Something is wrong with humanity if that happens. My experience with AI this morning was not that impressive. How it answers a question depends on how the question is worded. A person can get different answers by asking the same question differently. That can be like pulling back the curtain and exposing the Wizard of Oz.

However, the things AI can do, like create false pictures, are threatening. I have a friend who is working on high-tech computer chips, and I can hardly wait to visit with her and discuss the threats she sees. But I also see vacs deniers and other conspiracy theories, and I am shocked by what people believe. Like not only is the technology threatening, but people's willingness to believe lies is frightening. We need to work on our logic skills.

We are mostly singing from the same hymn sheet then. But I think it's OK to educate kids in how to use technology if they understand its situatedness with regard to subjectivity. And that can start simply by telling them: This stuff is not just something you use, but that if you use it, will use you. Here's how... — Baden

I am the one fighting to make it okay to use AI. Insisting people have liberal educations is not being anti-technology. However, a high IQ and being able to program computers or make mass destruction weapons does not equal wisdom, and we are the dumbest animal on the planet if we don't realize how important wisdom is. That requires a liberal education, and feeling responsible for what one knows and how one uses that knowledge.

I argue for liberal education as Christians argue for the Bible. Ever since the beginning of the US there has been a conflict between religious people and those who believe the Enlightenment is the most important source of knowledge.

I don't think we want to stop technology, but we need the wisdom to use it. Give us the liberty to use AI and work on our wisdom to use it well.

I am the one fighting to make it okay to use AI — Athena

I think that the way you are using AI is okay to use.

Our antipathy isn't directed at what you've described what you use it for, at least. You're not copy-pasting directly out of it, and you're willing to hear other sources rather than rely upon it as a source -- it's a tool for seeing something you may not have heard about, but you're not parading it about like an authority.

Saying that I hope you don't feel like we're fighting you, while still answering your question as to "Why not AI?"

Our antipathy isn't directed at what you've described what you use it for, at least. You're not copy-pasting directly out of it, and you're willing to hear other sources rather than rely upon it as a source -- it's a tool for seeing something you may not have heard about, but you're not parading it about like an authority. — Moliere

Old age is a double-edged sword. My brain isn't doing some things so well, but it is doing other things much better. What I like best is that I totally get that even the best of minds are very limited. Even the best authority is limited to a very tiny bit of information compared to all there is to know. Now I don't have the words for what I want to say, but I have a better understanding of the meaning. This is a moment when I have to Google for the words I am trying to remember. And here are the words I wanted to remember. "The More You Know The More You Realize You Don't Know".

:grin: That is a perfect explanation of why I want to use AI. The information is in my brain but I can't think of the right words.

Secondly, I am a fighter if the cause is important to me, and in this forum, everyone is so nice that there is nothing to be upset about. I keep thinking if I think of the right words to say, everyone will agree with my reasoning. :lol: Or maybe not. :lol: As long as everyone is nice about it, it doesn't really matter if we disagree.

Funny thing about "liberal education" is those few with the most of it have always, in theory and practice, substantially denied it to the many who need it to help liberate themselves. Modern history shows that "liberal education" (as e.g. Jefferson / Paine / Marx suggest) is only a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for liberty of the many. — 180 Proof

Interesting. What must go with a liberal education to manifest liberty?

I came across the notion that those who want liberty have the least freedom because of being self-regulating. That is, we do not do whatever we feel like doing, but we choose to do the right thing, even when we don't want to. I have heard the way to protect our liberty is to obey the law. But sometimes the law is unjust, and then action must be taken to correct that wrong.

I am usually arguing the importance of a liberal education, and Jefferson would not deny anyone a liberal education. Jefferson held that universal education is the most effective means of preserving democracy and good government.

Jefferson held that universal education ... — Athena

except for slaves, indentureds, girls and women ...

... is the most effective means of preserving democracy and good government.

However, it's not a sufficient condition for robust liberty.

.

Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable now that Al will become in the near future THE general authority. So, thinking will no longer be a practical necessity. — Baden

Wrong. AI does not know that water is wet. It does not know what wet is, and it does not know what water is. All it knows is what words usually go together.
And that is why it cannot do philosophy, which is the attempt to disentangle the muddles that words create using the world as template. Water is wet because — feel it — this is wetness. There is no logic to this; it is a demonstration. Here, you might need a towel. Oh, sorry, you seem to have blown a fuse and fried your circuits.

:up: Yes, AI/LLMs do not have concrete, phenomenal bodies in the world, ergo no 'common sense'.

And that is why it cannot do philosophy, which is the attempt to disentangle the muddles that words create using the world as template. — unenlightened

You don't think it will ever do philosophy on par with Nagels or Rawls or Chalmers?

You don't think it will ever do philosophy on par with Nagels or Rawls or Chalmers? — RogueAI

Not even on a par with Ayn Rand, or Walt Disney.