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.

I have heard some people who have to use AI regularly in their jobs say they can feel their brain cells dying due to lack of exercise.

AI is useful. In education AI can do great things for sure, as it can assess multiple students on a one-to-one level and pick out helpful routes for particular students with particular difficulties. A teacher has limited time resources.

Using AI to help you reframe your words for this forum is 'okay' I think, but I woudl go for your own attempts first and then try to rearticulate a few times before resorting to AI top interpret what you want to say. Otherwise you may start feeling like those guys in jobs where they have to use it to keep their jobs.

I use AI as a source of information. That means I am constantly learning. All this learning is more fun when I share it with others, and from my point of view, it doesn't matter where I get the information, from a book on my shelf, an encyclopedia, or an online source. What matters is how much work I put into it, and I hate quoting from a book because that is a lot of work for me, and I don't think people read the quotes.

My next consideration is quality and AI is a better writer than I am. Finding an exciting explanation is like bird watching with others, when the intent is to identify and count the number of birds, only I am only looking for information, not birds. I think discriminating against AI is like discriminating against people who look different. The rationale is a rationale, but it is not good reasoning.

So no one here cares about my thread about the great depression, and that is easy to accept. However, it came up in a Google search, so someone or something thought that information was worth spreading. That could be good for this forum, as it could attract a new person or many new people. That would make me feel good, but how much work do I want to put into it? If I could use AI as a second person in the thread, it might be fun to see what I could do. But I am not going to write the whole thread by myself, replying to my own post on the chance that something good could come from that. There has to be at least one other voice other than mine.

I don't think you need to worry about what AI could do to my enjoyment of learning.

So no one here cares about my thread about the great depression, and that is easy to accept. — Athena

There are a lot of threads that seem to die out pretty quickly. It isn't so much that people don't care as they mayn not have the competence, knowledge or will to critique the subject and its responders. LLM/AI could make participation easier as it removes the friction/work of sharing analysis.

The prohibition here does make me feel bad about my own LLM use as if I'm doing something wrong. But I suppose it is less bad than losing myself in mindless entertainment, like video games. A lot of folks here critique popular culture, in an off handed way, as something awful, as if it was competing antagonist for their more ambitious aims (self edification through discourse). The forum no doubt plays an important social function for some people, which for others the consumption of media/books/television tries to fill.

We could look at LLM as a synergistic element, in the sense that two minds are better than one, when one mind cannot receive sufficient feedback from another. Of course it is wrong to consider LLM a mind, but insofar as it can produce the illusion of a mind as output, it can assist a real mind/person in trying to make sense of the world.

:joke: I'm very disappointed that forum users don't use horses instead of cars to get to work. They/we could learn something about hard work from the Amish.

Or all philosophical exchanges should be done by embodied oration, in a public forum.

:joke:

I appreciate your humor. I can drop my concern about the depression thread, but the thread came up in a search, and that could benefit the forum if it attracts new people. But I might do better in life if I limit my efforts to what benefits me. Rarely does anyone appreciate my suggestions about what s/he should do. I have a very fickle mind. The last few days, Jack's thread about God has consumed my time, because in my mind, that got tied to quantum physics, the Mayan Factor, and sacred numbers. :yum:

My point was that I was working to benefit the forum and needed a voice other than my own, and that other voice could be AI. You know, along the line of using a car to get to work might work better than a horse and buggy. I am not sure the decision to restrict the use of AI in the forum is the best rationale. However, we may all be concerned about our economy being tied to AI. This could get very interesting very fast. The book "The Mayan Factor" by Jose Arguelles predicts an economic collapse on our Path Beyond Technology.

. I have a very fickle mind. — Athena

This is the modern malaise most young people also understand, given the roulette wheels of fleeting pleasures available at our finger tips. If AI can help sustain attention/commitment to the working topic, to dig in rather than just glide over the surface and onto the next thing, it surely is useful. But as folks have said, is it just another modern crutch that makes us weak and dependent and not very good, logical thinkers.

However, we may all be concerned about our economy being tied to AI. — Athena

Recently I saw headlines that ChatGPT data can be handed over to the police, as algorithms may detect those who are about to commit a crime. We're definitely living in a sci-fi novel now, much like the Minority Report, except the precogs (those that see us better than we see ourselves) are machine learning networks controlled by private businesses. The abuse of control over people lives, from power/wealth incentives, is worrisome, especially with the political climate now in the USA.

Also if these big data companies are reliant on advertising for their business model, and LLM search inquiries are bypassing advertisements; what do they stand to gain by doing that? When will LLM content start sneaking in advertisements to its free/base tier service, like all of the video/music streaming services have done, increasingly so.

This is the modern malaise most young people also understand, given the roulette wheels of fleeting pleasures available at our finger tips. If AI can help sustain attention/commitment to the working topic, to dig in rather than just glide over the surface and onto the next thing, it surely is useful. But as folks have said, is it just another modern crutch that makes us weak and dependent and not very good, logical thinkers. — Nils Loc

I don't think that last line defines my experience. :lol: My living space is now cluttered with books related to discussions, especially Jack's thread about God. This is not the same clutter of books I had two weeks ago because of a thread I was doing in a history forum. But then I use a walker and I don't think it makes me weaker, because without it I would not go for walks and for sure my body would get worse. I think it is our motivation that determines how we use tools and aids. If a child were to read something said in AI and ask me about it, I would be delighted and avoid defining the technology as bad and harmful.

As for your next paragraph. The subject demands our attention and perhaps our action. I have been complaining about our lack of privacy ever since we went from laws protecting our privacy to employers and landlords wanting to know what we used to keep private. I think charging a fee to prevent advertising is extortion that should be against the law.

We went into education for technology, and dropped liberal education that prepared us for good moral judgment with the 1958 National Defense Education Act. One of the problems of relying on the Bible for good moral judgment is that the book does not help us with the present demands of moral decision-making.

We have so much to discuss. Has the change in education and development of technology put us in a precarious position?