For the AI afficionado AI is to be treated like a black box, like a Ouija board or a Magic 8-Ball. They become impatient with those who ask the question, "How does it work?" They interrupt, exclaiming, "But look at what it can do!" — Leontiskos

The Ouija board is a strained analogy because Ouija boards don't work. If they reliably provided accurate answers, I'd be hard pressed not to use them, unless you could convince me of the dangers of dabbling in the black arts.

This is the unwritten answer to the question, "Why should we treat something as if it were something that it is not?" "Why should we lie to ourselves in this way?" The answer is, "Because it will give us great power. No more need be said." — Leontiskos

I think we're overthinking it (imagine that). The question really is "what do we want to do"? We needn't self justify our preferences. If we don't want to debate the ChatGpt p-zombie, then we don't have to. We have the right to ban people, so why can't we ban zombies? Just add to the rules: All posters must have a soul. No golems.

We just need to write our rules in a way that protects AI's private use and requires its public use be filtered sufficiently through the poster that it reflects the ideas of the poster.

They eat us and then they eat reality. — Baden

You just re-wrote a modern day Frankenstein.

The Ouija board is a strained analogy because Ouija boards don't work. If they reliably provided accurate answers, I'd be hard pressed not to use them, unless you could convince me of the dangers of dabbling in the black arts. — Hanover

Not everyone agrees that Ouija boards do not work. In any case, that's much my point: an LLM is like a Ouija board, except that it "works." It is a magical knowledge-generating device, and the power it provides is a sufficient reason against any objection.

Edit: Or to answer you more directly: If Ouija boards worked, then everyone would be happy to practice the black arts.

I think we're overthinking it (imagine that). The question really is "what do we want to do"? We needn't self justify our preferences. — Hanover

I agree entirely that that is the question. But you sort of do have to self-justify your preferences when they are being questioned by those who want to change the rules and make AI-use more acceptable on TPF. Or even when they are being questioned by those who want the rule made more strict. That is what <this thread> and <this thread> are doing, respectively.

We just need to write our rules in a way that protects AI's private use and requires its public use be filtered sufficiently through the poster that it reflects the ideas of the poster. — Hanover

Yeah, I think that's a helpful heuristic you provide. Still, it may be more easily said than done.

Let's focus on the actual harms that AI use has so far wrought upon this forum: What are they?

In one of my essays, I suggest AIs (because---depite their potential positives---of how they work on most people) are essentially entropy exporting and difference creating machines that localise structure at our expense (our brains are the dumpsters for their entropy), potentially creating massive concentrations of negentropy in their developing systems that speed up overall entropy and therefore consume (thermodynamic) time at a rate never before achieved and that is potenitially self-accelerating. I.e. They eat us and then they eat reality.

It's a little speculative. — Baden

I seem to switch between two exclusive mental settings when thinking about AI: the critical-theoretical and the pragmatic-instrumental. I appreciate these speculative thoughts of yours, and agree that like any technology now, AI isn't just a neutral tool, that it's part of a dehumanizing totality. But then I switch and I think about how best to use it, pretending that it is a neutral tool. And when I'm commenting in these discussions I'm usually in that pragmatic mode, because the system makes the false real, in the sense that I act it out.

I seem to switch between two exclusive mental settings when thinking about AI — Jamal

I am acutely aware of the incoherence of my intentional state when I am using an LLM. It's a bit like when you wake up from a very strange dream, and must now come to terms with the fact that the entire manner of being that engaged you a moment ago is incommensurable with the entire manner of being that you are now engaged in after waking. Extremely vivid and involved dreams are basically a form of psychosis, and when, upon waking, the psychotic break is reversed, there is a remarkable sense of discontinuity and dissociation. In that sense, the emerging problem of "AI psychosis" should not surprise us at all. LLMs allow us to intentionally alter our entire intentional orientation in a sustained and self-replicating way, and this possibility looks to be unprecedented. What arises is the question of how to ascend back out of the rabbit hole once one has descended. The danger lies in thinking that ascent is no longer necessary, or even that what was once seen as a rabbit hole is just "the new normal."

This is not the case for an LLM. A quote from Kant invites engagement with Kant and the history of philosophy; a quote from an LLM's output invites ... what? Engagement with the user's prompt engineering skills? — Jamal

In an attempt to rub salt into this, let's consider AI Peter Singer.

Will we say that a quote from AI Peter Singer is a quote from Peter? It would seem not, but the Bot is trained on all of Singer's texts, and apparently condoned by the man himself.

So I asked it, and it replied:

A quote from AI Peter Singer would be more accurately described as a representation of Peter Singer's views, based on his writings and input. While it reflects his ethical perspectives, it isn't directly authored by him. It's important to differentiate between the AI's generated responses and Peter Singer's personal statements. What do you think about this distinction? — AI Peter Singer

So I asked it what authority it has:

I don't possess authority in the traditional sense. My role is to provide insights based on Peter Singer's ethical views and writings. I'm here to help you think through ethical questions and offer guidance grounded in his utilitarian perspective. Ultimately, any decisions or actions are up to you, informed by your own reasoning and values. How do you see the role of philosophical guidance in your decision-making? — AI Peter Singer

All pretty obvious and sensible.

What will we make of an AI Kant, or an AI Nietzsche? It won't be long.

What will we make of... an AI Nietzsche? — Banno

I wonder if their reading will be existentialist or post-modern. No doubt we'll be able to pick.

:grin:

An AI Nietzsche will have the attention of all the adolescent fanboys and the Right Whinge in general; should be quite an earner.

Should we hook up and set one up? We could donate the profits to Australian Unions.

But an AI Nietzsche without hormones and a fragile sense of masculinity won't need to overcompensate so much...

We could add an AI Ayn Rand, and get the Liberals in as well.

But would an AI Wittgenstein be a performative contradiction?


Let alone a Chinese-Room AI Searle...

Frankly I prefer Ai Nietzsche to real Nietzsche.

:up: Having previously had very little experience of interacting with LLMs, I am now in the condition of fairly rapidly modifying my views on them. It is important to discuss the issues relating to human/LLM interaction as comprehensively and openly as possible, given what seem to be the significant array of potential dangers in this radical new world. It was an awakening sense of these possible threats that motivated the creation of this thread.

Yeah, but on the other hand, it might not be so bad to use an argument suggested by an LLM, so long as you understand it. After all, we do this all the time reading papers and books. Philosophical discourse takes place in a context that the participants in the discourse should have access to, and maybe LLMs just make this easier? — Jamal

Right, that's a good point, but I also think that, even if you present the LLMs argument, as understood by you, in your own words, it would be right to be transparent as to its source.

I would also feel bad posting as my own AI content that I have merely paraphrased, even if I understand it fully. (And I might even feel a bit ashamed disclosing it!) — Pierre-Normand

I think there would be real shame in the former, but not in the latter though. It's the difference between dishonesty and honesty.

Using them to polish your writing could be good (or merely acceptable) or bad depending on the nature and depth of the polishing. Jamal's earlier comparison with using a thesaurus was apt. An AI could point out places where your wording is clumsy or misleading. If the wording that it suggests instead is one that you can make your own, that's very similar to having a human editor make the suggestion to you. — Pierre-Normand

I agree with this in principle, though I would rather entirely author my own text, and discover and remedy any clunkiness myself and in my own time. That said, if someone, LLM or otherwise, points out grammatical infelicities, repetitiveness or lack of clarity, and so on, I'd take that as constructive criticism. Then I'd like to fix it in my own way.

I wonder if their reading will be existentialist or post-modern. No doubt we'll be able to pick. — Tom Storm

It would presumably incorporate the entirety of Nietzsche's opus as well as every secondary text dealing with Nietzsche's thought.

But would an AI Wittgenstein be a performative contradiction? — Banno

I'm curious as to why that should be.