Fortunately, TPF is already very restrictive regarding the use of AI, and the site rules were tightened specifically in response to this modern problem. :smile:

I would think handing your half-formed prose to a bot for it to improve it is plagiarism, regardless of the number of words changed or inserted. It's a different thing from you deliberately searching for a synonym. No? — bongo fury

Maybe plagiarism isn't quite the right term, but I'm happy to grant you the point. In the discussion about the new TPF rule regarding ChatGPT and sourcing that took place a few months ago, I had made a related point regarding the unpacking and ownership of ideas.

This is useful information. I had it in my mind that it didn't use the spaces, so I started using spaces to distinguish myself. I guess I'll go back to spaceless em dashes. — Jamal

I used to make a heavy use of em dashes before ChatGPT came out and people began to identify them as a mark of AI generated text. So, I stopped using them for awhile but I'm beginning to use them again since there are cases where parentheses just don't feel right for demarcating parenthetical clauses that you don't want to reduce the emphasis on, and comma pairs don't do the job either.

Sorry for ranting. — bongo fury

:cool:

sounds like the genetic fallacy to me. The source of one's post is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is logically sound or not.

How many on this forum have had a philosophical discussion with ChatGPT? Sometimes I find the AI's lack of emotional attachments to its responses a refreshing change to some of the intellectual dishonesty you can find here

and the ways in which prominent members of this site have used it to make themselves look smarter than they really are — Janus

I see this from time to time. One I'm thinking of tries to baffle with bullshit. Best to walk away, right?

I would think handing your half-formed prose to a bot for it to improve it is plagiarism, regardless of the number of words changed or inserted. — bongo fury

Unlike handing it to a human editor, which is what authors have been doing for yonks?

and every politician that has a speech writer.

Unlike handing it to a human editor, which is what authors have been doing for yonks? — SophistiCat

Yes.

Very unlike handing your fully formed prose to a human proof reader, for correction before its honest submission as your own work.

Or handing fully formed prose to an editor or censor for fitting it to required standards.

Or handing fully formed prose to a human editor for improvement, with due acknowledgement.

Nor even like handing your half formed prose to a ghost writer receiving due acknowledgement albeit semi-private.

Or even handing half formed prose to a "proof reader" for patently dishonest submission as your work.

Not even like that. But indulging instead the fantasy that AI has dissolved the accountability of sources and authors, for what they say.

AI is "trained" with real world data, just like you are. It's just that AI probably has a much larger number of sources than you might have. Do you give credit to every person you have read or listened to when you submit a post?

I don't see how quoting others as your argument is any different here.

I am not seeing your point, but whatever. You are entitled to your prejudices.

That's a cute dismissal. I just can't help hoping you are its author.

I think the point is that you can’t let your guard down anywhere, and you never could. — praxis

:mask: True.

I was under the impression that intelligence of ANY kind had already been banned on this site.

It does seem like a competitive situation of some sort is emerging.

We lost chess to the machines some time ago.

Large language models can write well-formed summaries, based on a lot of data, faster than humans.
Can be combined with whatever else, like automated theorem provers, natural language processing, ...

Can AI out-compete homo sapiens in a kind of discourse war, though...?

I disagree with this. I was toying around with a bunch of disparate ideas that seemed related to me. I used chat GPT to help me figure out what they had in common. That seems like a legitimate use to me. I use a thesaurus when I can’t think of the right word for a particular idea. I use quotes when I want to add legitimacy or clarity. AI feels like the same kind of tool — T Clark

It is like them in that it is a tool. It is also like them in that it adds clarity, organization and information. It is not like them in that if one wants it to, it can present highly complex ideas, organize them in an unlimited variety of ways, enter into discussions with you how and why and when to choose one interpretation or method of organization over another, and do all this while spitting out direct references and quotes to back up its assertions at your request.

I made a similar point . I think the ethos of the forum could discourage AI in the same way it discourages other practices. Full prohibition would be impracticable.

(B) swallowing the insulting fantasy of interaction with an intelligent oracle. — bongo fury

The lie that one is interacting with an intelligent oracle is too good to resist. It's worth asking whether it is even possible to regularly use an LLM without falling into the false belief that one is interacting with an intelligent and extremely knowledgeable person.

Unlike handing it to a human editor, which is what authors have been doing for yonks? — SophistiCat

Nah. You are engaging in the same basic equivocation between a human and an AI. The whole point is that interacting with humans is different from interacting with AI, and the two should not be conflated. You've begged the question in a pretty basic manner, namely by implying that interacting with a human duo is the same as interacting with a human and AI duo.

I think the crux is that whenever a new technology arises we just throw up our hands and give in. "It's inevitable - there's no point resisting!" This means that each small opportunity where resistance is possible is dismissed, and most every opportunity for resistance is small. But I have to give TPF its due. It has resisted by adding a rule against AI. It is not dismissing all of the small opportunities. Still, the temptation to give ourselves a pass when it comes to regulating these technologies is difficult to resist.

But as far as moderation strategy is concerned, there's the uncanny valley. A.I., hence the A, is made to look like intelligent human speech.

It's like trying to enforce the implied "no trolling" rule: how can that work 100% of the time? Isn't trolling an inherent part of social media and message boards? Seriously, who is like "oh yes! Nobody responded to my thread!"?

We can of course discuss intent, but there's always been a troll element to philosophy as well. Who would have written about Plato if everyone just ignored him? Aristophones did much more for his work than someone who silently respects him, even though it was derogatory for philosophers of their kind.

With A.I....what if it was used to find associated information? How will you police that?

I was under the impression that intelligence of ANY kind had already been banned on this site. — Ciceronianus

Take it easy, Marcus Tullius.

There are two aspects to philosophy: those who philosophize and those who talk about or otherwise repeat those who philosophize. AI falls into the later camp. All it can do is repeat the claims of philosophers in somewhat legible text (like many here). But it is unable to philosophize.

AI is a glorified search engine and its threat is overblown.

Ah, but the thing i find unsettling is that A.I. is also dishonest, it tries to appease you. However, yes, sometimes it is better than the weirdness of real humans.

[re-posting this from another thread]

As with any technology, AI can be used to benefit people or to harm them. From my perspective, the biggest dangers from AI are the abilities to create new ways of killing people.

I consider it likely that scientists all across the world (either with direct or tacit support of their governments) are already engaged in research to create new and more deadly bio-weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, China, Israel, Russia, etc.

At the risk of being a fear monger, AI itself will not destroy humanity. Humanity will use AI to self-destruct.

It would make me very happy to be wrong about this.

Your essay gets at the difference between humans and computers, which is something that the Analytic-leaning Anglo world struggles to understand. A beneficial side-effect of AI will be the way it will impel us to better understand what makes humans and the human mind distinctive, and this will center on the act of understanding.

LLMs now routinely write clear and flowing prose. — Jamal

For me, it’s not a question of clear and flowing, it’s a question of insightful. My experience with using AI myself is that it produces lots of surface without much depth. Lots of rounded corners with nothing that will cut.

The lie that one is interacting with an intelligent oracle is too good to resist. It's worth asking whether it is even possible to regularly use an LLM without falling into the false belief that one is interacting with an intelligent and extremely knowledgeable person. — Leontiskos

In using a.i. for a field like philosophy, I think one is interacting with extremely intelligent fragments of the ideas of multiple knowledgeable persons, and one must consult one’s own understanding to incorporate, or disassemble and reassemble those fragments in useful ways.

For me, it’s not a question of clear and flowing, it’s a question of insightful. My experience with using AI myself is that it produces lots of surface without much depth. Lots of rounded corners with nothing that will cut. — T Clark

If I ask A.I. to compare aspects of the philosophical viewpoints of specific phenomenological and hermeneutic philosophers like Dilthey and Husserl, it immediately wades into the deepest water concern f their similarities and differences. And why shouldn’t it? It locates those published works which employ such depth. But what if I persist with my probing questions? The a.i. will locate rigorous arguments pertaining to the areas I want to delve into with greater specificity and depth, including areas of ambiguity and controversy. And why shouldn’t it , as long as its database contains the writers who have pursued such directions? The key to an intellectually productive and even enlightening experience with the a.i. is that at each step of my questioning, I am familiar enough with the material to sculpt and refine the directions it will take next. I am its guide through the brightest minds in the field. Or can’t get there without me, and it would take me a lot longer to get there without it.

The key to an intellectually productive and even enlightening experience with the a.i. is that at each step of my questioning, I am familiar enough with the material to sculpt and refine the directions it will take next. I am its guide through the brightest minds in the field. Or can’t get there without me, and it would take me a lot longer to get there without it. — Joshs

I’ve already stated I find AI to be useful in investigating specific philosophical questions. When I’ve used it for that, I’ve handled it similarly to how you describe. I ask iterative questions and guide it to get me closer to what I’m looking for. That being said, a listing or summary of a bunch of smart guys’ ideas is not the same as insight. That requires a connection between things that are not normally thought of as connected. Something unexpected, surprising. The truth is always a surprise.

...a listing or summary of a bunch of smart guys’ ideas is not the same as insight. That requires a connection between things that are not normally thought of as connected. — T Clark

Yes. Insight results from thinking, which AI is incapable of doing. Noam Chomsky called the LLM's glorified plagiarism. I agree.