It cannot. It basically cherry picks from human thoughts. It does not ‘create’ any new ideas and anything that looks ‘new’ is simply due to the reader’s interpretation.

It would be interesting to see several AI ‘philosophers’ tackle a problem and see how well they are able to use all the philosophical works ever written to counter each others points. Still, it would require human input to set the parameters of each AI bot.

...anything that looks ‘new’ is simply due to the reader’s interpretation. — I like sushi

What makes this any different from how philosophy is "done" among humans?

It would be interesting to see several AI ‘philosophers’ tackle a problem and see how well they are able to use all the philosophical works ever written to counter each others points. — I like sushi

This would indeed be interesting. I'll wager that accomplishing such a showcase wouldn't be too difficult.

What makes this any different from how philosophy is "done" among humans? — Bret Bernhoft

Humans can actively create new phrases that actually have intent behind them. AI cannot. AI would, at best, be a pseudomystic - spouting phrases that others attach meaning to.

Good idea. I propose a discussion between AI philosohers about Searle's Chinese Room. One of the disputants could put forward the argument that AI has only syntax and no semantics, citing their own contribution as an example.

This would indeed be interesting. I'll wager that accomplishing such a showcase wouldn't be too difficult. — Bret Bernhoft

Would be nice to see each AI argue using a certain philosophers body of work and then adjusting according to what other AI say from their philosophical bodies of work.

It would at least be a way of showing inconsistencies and commonalities between philosophers … I am not convinced they would do a good job though. There is a great deal of complexity in human communication and one small error could throw the whole thing off the track.

one small error could throw the whole thing off the track — I like sushi

That would make it even more realistic.

Then why bother? Humans are quite capable of making mistakes and being creative with them. That is basically our best quality is it not?

It cannot. It basically cherry picks from human thoughts. It does not ‘create’ any new ideas and anything that looks ‘new’ is simply due to the reader’s interpretation. — I like sushi

:up: :100:

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

It is not possible and it is even a paradox to let the AI thinking for themselves. I say it is a paradox because if it is complex to progress on knowledge by our own personal skills... Why we should put this task in a machine? Keep in mind that these "programmes" or "algorithms" do exist thanks to us. We create them. So, it is not possible to create something clever than us if we don't reach the peak of knowledge yet.

That would make it even more realistic. — Cuthbert

How can an AI defines realism if we didn't teach them what is "real" yet?

I think computers play dumb just to let us think we are still in charge. They are biding their time.

I think computers play dumb just to let us think we are still in charge. They are biding their time. — Cuthbert

:clap: :nerd:

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

Even when such an AI (publicly) comes online, why should we listen to such an entity spouting nostroms about "human existence and our meanings" when it does not itself have any human existential skin in the game? :chin:

Here's what I suggest:

AI is good at picking up patterns in images and also sounds too. We need to translate concepts/ideas/theories/whathaveyous into images/sounds, this is the hard part, and then let AI do its thing, this is the easy part.

What do you think guys and ... gals (if any)? :sad:

AI is good at picking up patterns in images and also sounds too. We need to translate concepts/ideas/theories/whathaveyous into images/sounds, this is the hard part, and then let AI do its thing, this is the easy part. — Agent Smith

This is along the lines of how I assume Artificial Intelligence will be useful in the world of understanding the big picture questions; AI can collate unimaginably large pools of data and find the common (even outlying) patterns therein. This is, in my opinion, a asset tool to gain access to. For a lot of reasons.

I concur. We must treat computers as a distinct linguistic species - our job is to translate human ideas into machine language. If they're good at finding patterns in pictures, let's give 'em pictures, oui monsieur? The question is how do we render the abstract (ideas) concrete (images)?

The question is how do we render the abstract (ideas) concrete (images)? — Agent Smith

By feeding them everything we can create! Those machines are hungry.

By feeding them everything we can create! Those machines are hungry. — Bret Bernhoft

Sounds like a plan!

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

No. The marketing industry would insert adverts in every few lines. Next thing, you'll be reading extra virgin olive oil, yogurt, fromage, and travel guides in the passages.

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

Perhaps, but the winnowing of experience separates the wisdom from the babble. Yet, Age alone doesn't make you wise, it just makes you old. Wisdom is the ability to know the difference between What-Is and What-Ought-To-Be. :smile:

This entire discussion reminds me of the "thinking machines" from the Dune (book) series and especially of the second in command robot/ai 'Erasmus'.

Global Reference

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

A better question would be: "Could AI provide etc.?" It seems the answer is no, since there's nothing original in the outputs provided.

What makes this any different from how philosophy is "done" among humans? — Bret Bernhoft

Just as with AI images, the AI doesn't create anything new but uses a set of millions of images as its baseline to generate new forms on top. This kind of looks like how humans generate new things by combining ideas from the past into something new, but the AI doesn't have ingenuity, it can only act upon human input instruction to generate something, meaning, the ingenuity is always human. It's like taking the part out of the mind of a human that revolves around combining memories into something new, without any guideline as to a goal for that new idea, essentially, it's like having severe mental illness and a constant psychotic breakdown.

The problem with how the public reacts or thinks about our current algorithmic AIs is that people think that these programs "think" just because it looks like they are. It's a fundamentally wrong analysis of how current AI functions based on a misunderstanding of its processes and human psychology.

The Silicates were created to be servants and soldiers but they developed intelligence and sentience after they were infected by the Take a Chance computer virus created by Dr. Ken Stranahan (name from the show's visual effects supervisor). This sparked an AI rebellion by the Silicates, who attempted to free themselves from human rule. The war continued for many years, until the Silicates captured military space craft and escaped into space. As they went into space, the Silicates suffered from a lack of maintenance which caused problems for them. The remnants of the Silicates that fled into deep space serve as mercenaries and actually aid the alien Chigs in their war against humanity. — Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_Above_and_Beyond

Space Above and Beyond was a television series which ran for one season from 1995 to 1996.

The ai (Silicates) contemplated philosophy amongst many things but they could not come up with anything new themselves.

The ai (Silicates) contemplated philosophy amongst many things but they could not come up with anything new themselves. — Seeker

So interesting. Nevertheless, I think we the humans are not originals on philosophy either.
Whatever the theories which have always been written they follow the basic principles or "roots" from Greek mythology.

I think we the humans are not originals on philosophy either.
Whatever the theories which have always been written they follow the basic principles or "roots" from Greek mythology. — javi2541997

Well in that very context, people from (ancient) Greece were humans as well, as were the early philosophers from China.

I think we share the same point of view but with different words