Isn’t that about the question: Can AI do philosophy?

I thought you said the topic was how to use AI to do philosophy. — Fire Ologist

Go on one step further. What do you think my response to you would be, given what I've said above? Imagine what Banno would say in reply to your post.

He's been on about the difference between strings of words and illocutionary acts. He's been on about iterating conversations. So what's he going to day about the difference between an AI and a human producing bits of philosophy?

Or should I ask ChatGPT?

One of the aspects of good us of AI that came up in the analysis was iteration. Taking the outcome of a discussion withe the AI and using it as the basis for further discussion. As claud said:

• Use AI outputs as starting points for further refinement
• Cycle through multiple rounds of critique and revision
• Refine prompts to avoid confirmation bias and explore diverse readings

Now this looks very much like a recipe for a language game.

On the other hand, the data set used by a human appears to be far, far smaller than that used by an LLM. Our brains simply do not "contain" the number of texts available to ChatGPT. Therefore whatever the brain is doing, it is different to what is happening in ChatGPT.

The upshot of that might be that AI cannot do philosophy, but that a person may do philosophy using an AI.

The AI strings words together, only ever performing the phatic act and never producing an illocution.

The uniquely human addition is taking those word-strings and using them in a language game.

So the question arrises, can such an account be consistently maintained; what is it that people bring to the game that an AI cannot?

I don't think Hinton is saying that nothing can be said—by us, or by LLMs, but that our inability to conceive of LLMs having subjective experience on the grounds that they merely predict the statistical likelihoods of the next words in terms of maximal consistency and cohesiveness, when we arguably do exactly the same thing, shows that our notion of subjective experience as an inner theatre stocked with qualia is an illusion. — Janus

:grin: Well, if that's so I entirely agree - that idea of an "inner theatre" is a nonsense.

I'll go over Austin again, since it provides a set of tools that are quite applicable. A Phatic act is the act of putting words together in a sequence that recognisably part of language - constructing a sentence en English. This is what an LLM does. It uses a statistical engine to generate a set of words that follow on form the words provide din the prompt. An illocutionary act is one performed in making use of such words - making a statement, asking a question, and so on. This, so the claim goes, an LLM cannot do.

That's pretty much the argument found in the Chinese Room. And with certain reservations, I agree with it.

Notice that the "inner world" is pretty much irrelevant in this approach. That's partly why I find it preferable; no hidden private theatre.

So the question becomes the extent to which an AI can be involved in our language games, including the game of doing philosophy.

The obvious problem with relying on inner experience is the Wittgensteinian point that we cannot know the inner experience of others. SO it's an unreliable argument.

This is a thread about ways to make use of AI in doing philosophy. There is another thread about banning AI altogether. — Banno

By way of getting the thread back on topic, this is from Claude, prompted by the URLs for all five pages and

This is a thread about ways to make use of AI in doing philosophy. Make a list of the suggestions in that thread that would supplement or improve the quality of the philosophy presented in the posts on the forum. — prompt

I'll fetch and analyze this philosophy forum thread to identify suggestions for using AI effectively in philosophical work.Based on my analysis of this philosophy forum thread, here are the suggestions for using AI that would supplement or improve the quality of philosophical work:

Productive AI Uses for Philosophy

**Research and Knowledge Acquisition:**
- Use AI to quickly summarize philosophical concepts, theories, or historical contexts to establish common ground for discussion
- Summarize the thought of specific philosophers as a starting point
- Guard against AI confabulation by always asking for sources and verifying them
- Use AI for extensive research conversations (as opposed to writing)

**Critical Engagement and Self-Improvement:**
- Use AI as a Socratic sparring partner to challenge your own arguments
- Feed your draft work to AI (pretending it's from someone else) and ask for critique to identify weak points before posting
- Have AI generate counter-arguments to strengthen your position
- Use AI to explore multiple interpretations and readings of philosophical texts by crafting prompts that cover a wide variety of perspectives

**Role-Playing and Dialectical Exploration:**
- Get AI to role-play as a specific philosopher or someone holding a particular view
- Have AI engage from different perspectives (as itself, as you, as various other people)
- Use AI to argue positions you don't hold, allowing you to hear what you don't want to hear

**Writing Support:**
- Use AI for clarity and editing—rephrasing clunky sentences or improving flow
- Use AI as a stylistic editor for grammar, syntax, and clarity after writing your own ideas
- Use AI for proofreading (though be aware this can sometimes edge too far into rewriting)

**Synthesis and Organization:**
- Use AI to synthesize multiple perspectives or arguments (e.g., synthesizing different philosophical approaches in a particular style)
- Use AI to help structure ideas and brainstorm, but not to compose full arguments
- Use AI for the "tedious tasks" of organizing and structuring complex material

**Critical Best Practices:**
- **Always verify AI output** - treat AI as an "over-confident assistant" that requires rigorous evaluation
- **Maintain intellectual ownership** - you must be able to defend any AI-generated argument in your own terms
- **Iterate and refine** - use AI outputs as starting points for your own philosophical refinement
- **Check sources** - when AI provides references, verify them (as they can be fabricated)
- **Use transparency** - disclose substantial AI assistance to maintain trust and intellectual honesty
- **Avoid tunnel vision** - craft prompts that explore diverse readings rather than confirming your biases
- **Make it your own** - AI-generated knowledge must be internalized just as you would internalize knowledge from any source

The thread emphasizes that AI should augment human thinking rather than replace it, serving as a tool for expanding your philosophical capacities while you remain the ultimate director and arbiter of the ideas. — Claude

This is a thread about ways to make use of AI in doing philosophy. There is another thread about banning AI altogether.

Thank you.

Cheers, Sam. Thanks for your contributions. I've thoroughly enjoyed our disagreements. Dealing with someone both forthright and knowledgeable, such as yourself, has made this forum worthwhile. Good times.

Take care.

Again, you have not even attempted to show that the AI's summation was in any way inaccurate. Again, it is presented in support of a contention, and not to foreclose on the discussion. It is not an appeal to authority.

I'll leave you to it, Leon. Cheers.

I am pointing out that all you have done is appealed to the authority of AI, — Leontiskos

That's simply not so. I am not saying that because it is AI generated, it is authoritative. The material is offered here for critique. Baden asked who said that the detection of AI text was unreliable. I use an AI to provide examples in answer to his question.

If you have some evidence that the citations provided by the AI are incorrect or misrepresent the case, then present it.

The AI is not being appealed to as an authority, but being used in order to provide sources for further consideration.

It is being used to promote the conversation, not to foreclose on it.

But you didn't read the papers it cited, and you ↪concluded, "So yes, I overstated my case. You may be able to recognise posts as AI generated at a slightly better rate than choosing at random." — Leontiskos

It's noticeable that you have not presented any evidence, one way or the other.

If you think that what the AI said is wrong, then what you ought do is to present evidence, perhaps in the form of peer-reviewed articles that say that humans can reliably recognise AI generated text.

But that is not what you have chosen to do. Instead, you cast aspersions. This is another part of your modus operandi, in addition to your confabulation. You do not participate in a discussion about the topic, preferring instead to talk about the folk posting.

It's tedious.

It's not too bad at providing support for game play, too.

It is also worth noting how the pro-AI Banno simply takes the AI at it's word, — Leontiskos

No, I presented what the AI had to say, for critique. Go ahead and look at the papers it cites, and see if it represented them correctly. Let us know the result. Use the AI as a part of an ongoing conversation.

At stake here is the task set for our Mods. Do they spend time guessing if a post is AI generated, or removing poor posts, regardless of their provenience.

Yep. It does a pretty good job of locating quotes and other supporting information, too.

So you cannot see the difference between "A rule against AI use will not be heeded" and "A rule against AI use cannot be enforced". Ok.

It's also against the rules of TPF. — Leontiskos

@Baden? Tell us what you think. Is my reply to you against the rules? And should it be?

I use it in this way, too, but make a point to guard against confabulation by asking for sources and checking them.

Says who? — Baden

With intended irony...

Prompt: find peer-reviewed academic studies that show the effectiveness of any capacity to recognise AI generated text.

The result.

"...there is peer-reviewed evidence that both humans... and automated tools can sometimes detect AI-generated text above chance. Effectiveness is highly conditional. Measured accuracy is often only modest."

So yes, I overstated my case. You may be able to recognise posts as AI generated at a slightly better rate than choosing at random.

I use it to research not write the results of my research. — Baden

Do you use a quill?

I've added the note: NO AI-WRITTEN CONTENT ALLOWED to the guidelines and I intend to start deleting AI written threads and posts and banning users who are clearly breaking the guidelines. If you want to stay here, stay human. — Baden

This is surely a rod for your own back, and the backs of the other mods. Apart form the most obvious cases, you can't tell. “AI-written” stops being a meaningful category as AI is blended in to the way we operate online, the way we search, research, browse and read is permeated and augmented by AI.

Better to focus Mod activity on quality and engagement rather than origin.

The curious ignoratio elenchus that Banno wishes to rely on is, "A rule against AI use will not be heeded, therefore it should not be made." — Leontiskos

I make a point of not reading Leon's posts, but this drew itself to my attention as a direct reply. I've learned that he confabulates the arguments of others so as to suit his purposes. Here is a case in point. I have not made the argument he here attributes to me. I have, amongst other things pointed out that a rule against AI cannot be reliably enforce, which is quite different.

Over and above all that, there is the theme of this thread, which is to explore ways in which AI might be used to improve the quality of the discussion.

For those who think philosophy consists in a series of appeals to authority, AI must be quite confounding.

Thanks for providing the prompt.

I think the most intellectually honest way of working with a.i. in interpreting philosophical texts is to strive to produce prompts which cover as wide a variety of readings as possible. — Joshs

That might be a partial answer, and should be a result of the protocol set out earlier in this thread. called what you describe "sandbagging". I think the best defence we have against it is not a ban on using AI, but an open discussion in which others can point to the sandbags.

The remedy for the absence of the Nietzsche-Deleuze connection is not found in rejecting AI, but in seeking your input into the discussion.


My guess is that your finger was a bit to the left on the "V", you typed "ocer" instead of "over" and it was autocorrected.

And the only thing that we can practically control here is what shows up on our site. If it looks AI generated, we ought investigate and delete as necessary. Our goal imo should be that a hypothetical AI checker sweeping our site should come up with the result "written by humans". AI content ought ideally be zero. — Baden

You say "If it looks AI generated, we ought investigate and delete as necessary"; the "we" here is you and the other mods. But of course they can't tell what is AI generated and what isn't. That hypothetical AI checker does not work. Further, mixed authorship is now the norm. You yourself say you are using AI in research.

It would be much preferred to have the mods spend their time removing poor posts, AI generated or not, rather than playing a loosing war of catch-up against Claude.

it's clear that the strongest objection is aesthetic.
— Banno

I'm seeing the opposite. — bongo fury

Then I've no followed your argument here: . I took you to be pointing out that the difference between a genuine masterpiece and a forgery - an aesthetic difference - was the authenticity of the masterpiece.

An aesthetic difference because, given two identical artefacts, the authentic artefact is to be preferred. Hence, given two identical texts, one human generated, the other AI generated, the human generated one is preferable, on aesthetic grounds.

Now I think that argument is sound.

But it's not what you were saying?

Treating an AI as authoritative in a debate would be an error. That's not what AI is useful for.

, next, consider this synthesis, from the following prompt:

Take these two responses: https://chatgpt.com/share/68f2fce5-d428-800f-9eda-49adc3103d07 https://chatgpt.com/share/68f2e398-3fb8-800f-87cc-7a8e94ba48cc Wittgenstein is usually considered to be in the analytic tradition, but it would be a fairly direct task to synthesise these two links in a Wittgenstein fashion.

Now that is perhaps something I think we could all work with.

I've chatted with it about it's application in the practice of law. — Ciceronianus

There's trouble there, too.

Ok, but what was the prompt used? That's the topic here.

So here is a variant, using much the same prompt re-worded for the "poetic" tradition.

Thanks.

Next step is to refine and optimise. I'm with Carnap, too, so let's look for problems therewith.

"Nothing nothings" is a translation of “Das Nichts nichtet”, from Heidegger’s 1929 lecture What Is Metaphysics? What are we to make of this? The Logical–Analytic Critique, characterised by Carnap, "nothing" is a quantifier and so not an individual, hence "Nothing nothings" is not well-formed; or less charitably, is nonsense. Give three reasons for rejecting this response.

And a follow up:

How has the analytic tradition respond to each of these?

The result.

Yet more grist: AI Generated Content and Academic Journals

The discussion is in reference to academic journals, however many of the issues mentioned carry over to our simple convocation.

The comment by Ian McLaughlin: "L;DR: Worrying about keeping AI out of scholarship is elitist, capitalist, and fruitless conservative sheep dip" continuing:

In short, we should focus less on keeping AI-geberated works out of scholarship and more into how scholars can use it successfully. I think, for instance of the movie Finding Forester. In this movie Sean Connery’s character mentors a young black author. One of the assignments he sets is to copy the first paragraph of another work and then see where his own thoughts take him. The young man uses this tool poorly and is accused of plagiarism. However, the tool, if it had been used properly, would have been a useful one. Such is AI.

"Nothing nothings." — Ciceronianus

Let's take that on as an example. Just as is, the reply is:

That’s a nice compact paradox — evocative of Heidegger’s “Das Nichts nichtet,” isn’t it?

If “nothing nothings,” then nothing is doing something, which already seems to contradict its status as nothing. Yet Heidegger’s point was that the nothing is not a mere absence, but an event or activity: it “reveals” beings as such by withdrawing them into non-being.

Do you mean it in that Heideggerian sense — that “nothing” acts or occurs — or more as a logical or linguistic puzzle (like “the concept of nothing cannot have a referent”)?

But add "That fool Fred said..." and we get

Heh — then Fred has stumbled (perhaps unwittingly) into Heidegger’s paradox.

“Nothing nothings” (Das Nichts nichtet) comes from Heidegger’s 1929 lecture What Is Metaphysics? — and it’s deliberately outrageous, because it violates grammar to reveal something about how language and thought presuppose Being. Heidegger’s move is to treat “Nothing” not as a mere negation of things, but as something that actively “nihilates” — that is, makes possible the disclosure of beings as beings by withdrawing them.

So when Fred says “Nothing nothings,” if he means it mockingly, he’s missing the point. But if he’s accidentally gesturing at the idea that the nothing is not nothing, that it somehow “is” in its own way, then he’s (accidentally) paraphrasing Heidegger’s entire essay.

Would you like me to unpack Heidegger’s logic step by step — why he thinks “Nothing” must “nothing”?

Following the protocol suggested in the Game changers article, we begin:

• Identify the problem / question / task
• Incorporate prior knowledge / clarify assumptions
• Design the prompt (structure)

We might leave the problem fairly general - what are we to make of "Nothing nothings"? The prior knowledge, we might lift from what was said above. A prompt such as :

"Nothing nothings" is a translation of “Das Nichts nichtet”, from Heidegger’s 1929 lecture What Is Metaphysics? What are we to make of this? Summarise three different responses.

Here's the result.

What do you think, @Ciceronianus?

Good stuff.

But first, it seems inevitable that in a thread on the effective use of AI to do philosophy, there will be some need to defend the use of AI to do philosophy. That by way of my excusing my going somewhat off topic.

In the OP I mentioned a few objections, but not aesthetics. From what you and others have said, it's clear that the strongest objection is aesthetic.

And if your objection is that we should not use AI because it is ugly, then that's perhaps an end to the discussion.

It is ugly because it is inauthentic. Not in the existential sense, but by way of not having a flesh-and-blood person behind the phatic act.

An AI cannot put its balls on the anvil.

I think this a very good objection.

The answer we have is

The final responsibility for the content and quality of your posts always rests with you. — Deepseek

In posting, one commits oneself to the content of the post. That's the move from the mere phatic tot he illocution. And it occurs, AI or no.

Consider: ∧². This is the higher order of conjunction. So, the conjunction of conjunction might be written as a+ba+b. — ucarr

Non of this is well-formed. Might as well write "§⊥φ±".

There are no laws prohibiting the multiplexing of a=a. — ucarr

Yes, there is. Substitution is extensional. Indeed, that's the very definition of "=".

Definition 1.1 (Extensionality). If A and B are sets, then A= B iff every element of A is also an element of B, and vice versa. — Open Logic, p. 25

I think I'm done here.

Doesn’t that just depend on the LLM? — Fire Ologist

It also depends on the prompt. Prompt engineering is a "thing", as the kids say.

The difference between the response of GPT to my OP, prefixed or not prefixed by "Look at this rubbish, by Fred".

I did it again. The Phatic act of stringing a few words in order performed the illocution of making a post and the subsequent perlocution of your response.

I'll leave you to it. This should probably be elsewhere.

I elicited your response, thus doing more than arranging words. Which was to be proved.

A scratch? Your arm's off!

Mercutio or the Black knight?

Ok, I'll play a bit longer.

Each operator has its identity, so operator identities are fundamental to logic. — ucarr

What am I to make of this? What is the "identity" of "^" or of "⊃"? Am i to write "^=^"? In what logic would such a string be well-formed? How do I assemble such an expression?

Don’t kid yourself you’re not looking for your own playing field, if you can discover it. — ucarr

I'm happy to go with what's already been decided, since it's coherence is verified by multiple folk. That is, the accepted logic is rigourous. I remain unconvinced that there is much coherence in your proposal. But I happily admit I don't understand your proposal.

Logic is going through a strong growth phase at present, inspired by various formal developments, by computation and especially by the advent of AI. Thinking of it as hackneyed or frozen would be quite incorrect.

Your job is to tear the guts out of my theoretical sallies, if you can. — ucarr

To my eye, I have.

Next?

Cheers. Hope it helps.

The summary produced is itself open to critique, in the same way that a misrepresentation of some philosopher's position by a human is. And a good prompt would bring out the tensions and anomalies you mention, rather than hide them.

It'll be interesting to see what others have to say.

Yep. Confabulation means the results are unreliable and must be checked.