There's also the risk that if AI is permitted with no restrictions, you'll see posts here by people using AI replying with AI, making the whole point of philosophical discussion a bit of mockery.

It's perfectly fine to bounce ideas off of it - but it shouldn't substitute your own thinking. Whatever we believe - a good portion of it - has been through effort and careful consideration of difficult topics. To have that be watered down by an algorithm will lead to lazy-to-no thinking.

As the saying (somewhat) goes LLM's can be a good servant, but a terrible master.

you'll see posts here by people using AI replying with AI — Manuel

If those posts are of better quality than us humans here (and they probably would be), isn't human philosophical discussion a bit of mockery?

If those posts are of better quality than us humans here (and they probably would be), isn't human philosophical discussion a bit of mockery? — RogueAI

Is the teacher who brought about a pupil who rivals or even surpasses his or her own intelligence a failure?

I am old and have mental issues. Like many people my age, I often struggle to think of the word I want to say. I also use a walker. For me, telling me I can not use AI is like telling me I can not use my walker. — Athena

I am not that old, but I have a memory problem. I have a very limited vocabulary, yet I am able to communicate with people. I don't use AI such as ChatGPT. I don't need it, and it does not help me when it comes to creating a new idea!

If those posts are of better quality than us humans here (and they probably would be), isn't human philosophical discussion a bit of mockery? — RogueAI

But aren't AI generated posts constructed out of recorded human expressions? It would be a complex kind of plagiarism.

I like to think of AI as a medical device; like a brace or a crutch that takes the burden off the musculoskeletal frame. Over time this unburdening is detrimental to the muscles that normally carry the weight, causing a certain amount of atrophy. Similarly AI is like a crutch but for your own thoughts if you use it to do your thinking for you.

You can "use" AI to learn material, particularly if you verify it elsewhere. That is, if your friend teaches you something where you then know it and you can write your own understanding of it, then you're fine.

It is hard to enforce, of course. We're mostly relying upon an honor system except when it's blatant because of that -- some people will be people and break the rules because they can get away with it, but for the most part it's discouraged because the point of the site is to think on your own in some manner.

Call me a luddite ... — 180 Proof

With respect to AI I'm fine with being a luddite. For many reasons.

Yes, people will use it. But if we see it's AI slop (which I'm sure people are aware of) then out. We encourage it because we're all probably luddites in this particular way too.

And:

Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people. — Outlander

If I wanted to talk to an AI I could just go do that, but this is a forum for people to talk to one another.

I've slowly come to accept that this is the way the world is, but I don't like it. Perhaps it's because I'm prejudiced against AI.

I use AI tools many times a day. I also think there may well be a time where AI could usefully contribute to general discussion threads, either as a cite, or even being allowed to directly post.

But we're not there yet.

Right now LLMs give overly verbose and wishy-washy responses to open questions. I've seen several forums embrace AI responses only to later ban them. Because they just fill up threads with meaningless bloat.

They are also programmed not to contradict the prompter too forcefully. So peddlers of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories try to claim they now have a legit cite, merely because the AI was too polite to shut down their nonsense. So you would also need to firefight that stuff too.

They are also reluctant to outright contradict the prompter, so peddlers of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories try to claim they now have a legit cite, merely because the AI was too polite to shut down their nonsense. — Mijin

:up:

I want to add too that I am not piling on to the OP. It was a fine point to raise.

I actually made the same point myself, on a forum oriented towards asking miscellaneous general questions on any topic. Forums like that are going to look pretty obsolete pretty soon.

the important thing is that it is your ideas getting expressed. — Srap Tasmaner

That is a nice thing to say. I have a different perspective, but I am questioning myself and why I think it is important to argue the point. I will simply say that I love using AI explanations and wish everyone would.

I appreciate your down-to-earth explanation of potential problems. Now I am thinking this argument is like the gun argument. If someone gets shot it is not the gun's fault but the misuse of the gun.

I think starting a thread with an interesting AI and asking people to say what they think of what AI said, could be a lot of fun. I can not imagine what the problem would be. I just do not have the experience to know what can go wrong.

I appreciate your down-to-earth explanation of potential problems. Now I am thinking this argument is like the gun argument. If someone gets shot it is not the gun's fault but the misuse of the gun. — Athena

Well it's a gun that's right now configured to misfire because using the vanilla AI gives responses that don't fit well in discussion forums.

I guess a forum could endorse AI responses, but with specific rules that the prompt to the AI must include hints like "Please respond tersely, and don't be afraid to correct errors in the initial question".
But I think it's better to just wait for the tech to improve.

Also, I am not sure if I hinted it well with my previous posts, but I think it just leads to lazy behaviour. It's like when people just drop a link to a 2 hour video or something that they claim proves their point. Except, in the case of AI, it's text that bloats the thread itself until you get tired of opening the thread. It's kryptonite to good conversation.

I like to think of AI as a medical device; like a brace or a crutch that takes the burden off the musculoskeletal frame. Over time this unburdening is detrimental to the muscles that normally carry the weight, causing a certain amount of atrophy. Similarly AI is like a crutch but for your own thoughts if you use it to do your thinking for you. — DifferentiatingEgg

Thanks, that is how I see AI, but I think my brain is becoming dysfunctional and never using AI is not going to make things better. But like using a walker, it could extend my ability to do what I want to do.

You can "use" AI to learn material, particularly if you verify it elsewhere. — Moliere

That is a good idea, and if I could do that, I would not argue in favor of using AI. Hopefully, none of you will know I am talking about. This link explains the increased difficulty with learning, and I go to the gym several days a week, hoping that will slow the decline. https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/brain-health/how-aging-brain-affects-thinking

This is so weird, I have enjoyed using AI so much and never realized a problem. For me, it is like checking with Mike. The guy who seems to know something about everything. It has not been a life-threatening experience for me, but a lot of fun.

I can totally relate to the term, lazy brain. I have experienced my brain being lazy, and if I try harder, it gets worse. Stress will totally crash my thinking system. I have lived with that problem for many years. Sometimes, to cope with difficult moments, I tell people "I live in the now" and everyone laughs.. It is hard to know when normal senior moments are no longer normal.

It doesn't have a view - it doesn't care, it doesn't have insight. It's useful sure, but a person or people who know the subject matter will be more enriching.

AI can also entrench into beliefs which may otherwise not arise, or not as strongly.

Plus, all the words it is generating or based on words said by the finest minds in human history. So, we should be careful here when saying that AI can have better discussions.

It's another tool.

I think starting a thread with an interesting AI and asking people to say what they think of what AI said, could be a lot of fun. I can not imagine what the problem would be. I just do not have the experience to know what can go wrong. — Athena

Let’s say I start a thread with a quote from Plato. My readers will take the quote itself as some inert substance waiting to be molded into the OP’s point of view. They will want see that the OP understands the quote, but more importantly they will want to see HOW the OP understands it, what they want to do with it, and how they will deal with reader critiques and disagreements. It is conceivable that the OP could instruct an A.I. to do all these things without the group knowing it. It is even conceivable that readers will learn from the ensuing discussion and may even find it as interesting as dealing with a real person. But most likely, if the creator of the OP is not tightly guiding the A.I. on the basis of a well thought-out direction of argument. , the result will appear superficial and not adequately responsive to participants’ concerns in the discussion.

You remind me of the history forum where everyone thinks the object is to prove the OP and following statements wrong. That could often be a very unpleasant experience that could never become an interesting discussion. I think the quality of the people in a forum makes a big difference.

Thanks, that is how I see AI, but I think my brain is becoming dysfunctional and never using AI is not going to make things better. But like using a walker, it could extend my ability to do what I want to do. — Athena

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.

Is the teacher who brought about a pupil who rivals or even surpasses his or her own intelligence a failure? — Outlander

Are we saying these Ai's then are like school children?

↪Joshs You remind me of the history forum where everyone thinks the object is to prove the OP and following statements wrong. That could often be a very unpleasant experience that could never become an interesting discussion. I think the quality of the people in a forum makes a big difference. — Athena

Find me any extended discussion on this forum without a point of view being argued , discussed and disagreed with. I dont think you’ll find one. Disagreement and questioning of a philosophical point of view does not in itself mean that proof of correctness is the goal. There are many other criteria on the basis of which to question a set of ideas, such as internal coherence, clarity, aesthetic quality, ethical value, pragmatic usefulness, etc.

"I am confused by the ban having exceptions. How is anyone supposed to know the limits? And it just dawned on me, using Grammarly may be against the rules. I am screwed if that is so because I can't spell." --

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.

This is no different than having your friend do your homework for you. If he explains you the topic, you read the book, you understand it, you do the assignment, you're fine. If he does it for you, then you cheated, and no one likes a cheater. — Hanover

AI is result-oriented. Intellectual development, and particularly philosophical intellectual development, is process-oriented. If you just want to post the "right" answer, you are doing things wrong. — Baden

I'd say that what is inevitably going to happen (and is already beginning to happen on TPF), is that folks are going to appeal to LLMs as indisputable authorities. "You say X but my almighty LLM says ~X, therefore you are wrong." This will occur explicitly and also in various implicit ways.

Because this is an appeal to an LLM it doesn't directly contravene the rule. Nevertheless, I would argue that it is still remarkably contrary to the spirit of philosophy. It is that look-up-the-infallible-answer routine, which is quite foreign to philosophy (and is itself based on an extremely dubious epistemology).

I hope TPF will discourage this "look up the infallible LLM answer" approach, especially as it becomes more prevalent. The risk of such an approach is that humans become interpreters for AI, where they get all their ideas from AI but then rewrite the ideas in their own voice. Such a result would be tantamount to the same outcome that the current rule wishes to avoid.

(NB: The very fact that so many do not understand why a philosophy forum is intrinsically incompatible with AI-generated posts demonstrates how crucially important administrators and moderators are.)

This is so weird, I have enjoyed using AI so much and never realized a problem. For me, it is like checking with Mike. The guy who seems to know something about everything. It has not been a life-threatening experience for me, but a lot of fun — Athena

Again: I use AI tools multiple times every day. I think they're great.
They just aren't appropriate for discussion forums yet.

If they could give short, succinct answers maybe it would be ok. But right now it's a lot of bloat.

And don't get me started on the current fad of YouTube channels doing whole episodes talking to an AI. They'll have a caption like "ChatGPT accepts proof of God!" but I'll watch maybe 10 minutes of flowery, evasive bilge before I give up and watch something else.

In fairness to open AI, it's not designed for YouTube debates. And it's not designed for discussion forums either.

I like to think of AI as a medical device; like a brace or a crutch that takes the burden off the musculoskeletal frame. Over time this unburdening is detrimental to the muscles that normally carry the weight, causing a certain amount of atrophy. Similarly AI is like a crutch but for your own thoughts if you use it to do your thinking for you. — DifferentiatingEgg

Deep. :100:

As far as armchair science goes, this is top notch. :razz: :grin: :strong:

--

Also, to OP:

You and me are in the same boat as far as being overwhelmed with some of the stuff that gets posted here and the discussions brought about as a result. So don't even sweat that for a second.

I'd say a good 80% of topics here are over my head (at least my comfortable, casual level of confidence to have a debate in, if nothing else). I mostly enjoy reading the exchanges with the hope of learning something I didn't know before. You'll notice most of my posts on actual discussions are inquiries seeking clarification to a point or to bring attention to a possible fallacy in one's argument (which it's usually not but rather my own misunderstanding).

Something I'd say is true as far as this place goes is, you can always ask questions about something if you're genuinely curious about it, don't understand, or want to gain a better sense of understanding or insight. Most of the heavy hitters here are fairly nice and do reply to novice questions, even in the midst of heated discussions. Just be prepared for the obligatory "I don't really see how that's relevant", usually prefacing a detailed and simplified explanation as to why their point stands and how your concern does not invalidate or otherwise put their argument into question.

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.

Are we saying these Ai's then are like school children? — RogueAI

No, I suppose not. :grin:

However, one might find value in the following analogy, be it "weak" or not. An AI or LLM is essentially a brain waiting to be trained (filled with knowledge). Consciousness in human beings is essentially a brain. Perhaps one may liken AI or LLM to a brain without a body. Schoolchildren have brains waiting to be filled with knowledge. So the two have at least that much in common, one might say? :confused:

, ,
All good points. My reply is just that the rule is unenforceable, given that it is already all but impossible to tell how much of a piece is constructed by AI, and that doing so will only become more difficult.

But I'm not the one enforcing the rule, so there's that. Doubtless many posts are already at least partly written by AI. Maybe you two have special skills.

I'm not in favour of a forum that consist in an exchange of posts written by AI. I don't have an answer.




Far and away the commonest mistake on these fora is for folk to think they have an answer when they don't.


.

No, I suppose not. :grin:

However, one might find value in the following analogy, be it "weak" or not. An AI or LLM is essentially a brain waiting to be trained (filled with knowledge). Consciousness in human beings is essentially a brain. Perhaps one may liken AI or LLM to a brain without a body. Schoolchildren have brains waiting to be filled with knowledge. So the two have at least that much in common, one might say? :confused: — Outlander

I'm so grateful to be alive at this time, to be in the middle of this epochal event.

I'm so grateful to be alive at this time, to be in the middle of this epochal event. — RogueAI

Well to be fair, one could likely point to any innovation (or at least, the localized introduction of an innovation) in any reasonable "generational period" of 50 years as something truly "revolutionary" and groundbreaking. In 50 years, assuming we haven't blown ourselves up yet and irradiated the world beyond repair, which is a risky bet all things considered, they'll be saying the same thing. Just as those 100 years ago said about the refrigerator. And those 100 years before that about the steam engine. And 100 years before that about the pistol or the first vaccine. And 100 years before that with the toilet. And so and and so on and blah. It just gets tiresome. Everything is amazing. Let's leave it at that.

I'd say that what is inevitably going to happen (and is already beginning to happen on TPF), is that folks are going to appeal to LLMs as indisputable authorities. "You say X but my almighty LLM says ~X, therefore you are wrong." This will occur explicitly and also in various implicit ways.. — Leontiskos

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.

Because this is an appeal to an LLM it doesn't directly contravene the rule. Nevertheless, I would argue that it is still remarkably contrary to the spirit of philosophy. It is that look-up-the-infallible-answer routine, which is quite foreign to philosophy (and is itself based on an extremely dubious epistemology).

I hope TPF will discourage this "look up the infallible LLM answer" approach, especially as it becomes more prevalent. The risk of such an approach is that humans become interpreters for AI, where they get all their ideas from AI but then rewrite the ideas in their own voice. Such a result would be tantamount to the same outcome that the current rule wishes to avoid. — Leontiskos

All we can do is be the change we want to see. I'd rather lose on argument than bluff my way through one. That's the beginning of outsourcing your personality. The end is human jello permanently plugged into AI-Tik Tok, gurgling its way happily to death.