Yes, I may be up for that.
I think his ideas are both important and interesting, and also relevant to any discussion about using AI as a source.
Does the “ultimate meaning” of a text derive from the author of the text or the reader’s interpretation of the text, ignoring any meaning intended by the author (Wikipedia - The Death of the Author).
If the “ultimate meaning” does derive from the reader’s interpretation of the text, then it should not be necessary to refer to the original author.
1 Like
If AI can do it, why can’t humans? Isn’t just a sign of humans getting lazier?
I am sure one consequence of technology is that many people now have the excuse to become lazy.
Yes, your poll suggested that more than a few were interested! Perhaps, just take it as read…that it would be a good choice for the June, or whenever group? Or will the Literary Event be happening then?
So, you would be up for a group reading and discussion?
As a stand-alone or as Jamal’s?
I linked to the first online text I found but some others may be better?
AI is just a glorified database program, which picks up the pre-written and stored sentences by some techy dudes, and throw them to the user mechanically with no knowledge of what it is doing.
What AI is also doing is, collecting the users data in their system for some unknown future uses, so users of AI are losing left right and centre by keep using it.
You ask AI, “Do you fancy a pint?”, AI will say “Why not, here are the good pubs in the town you live blah blah.” It already knows where you live, and what do you, and what you buy, what forums you go to … everything gets stored in AI about you. They are just massive data collecting system.
Whilst giving you some smarmy answers you ask, it collects data about you as well. So it is not free system.
I believe the Literary Situation might be taking place in September, so June might be ok for a reading group.
Yes, in Peirce’s terms, the “sign” is the the form that represents something, the “object is the thing that the sign refers to and the “interpretant” is the understanding or meaning derived from the sign (Wikipedia - Semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce)
There is the sign, which could be 9, nine or IX, there is the object, which could be 9 rocks and there is the interpretant, which could be my concept independent of either sign or object.
There are different kinds of ideas.
Some ideas I don’t need to reference their author such as “killing is immoral” or the distance traveled by a falling object can be calculated using the equation D = 0.5 g t sq.
Some ideas I do need to reference as they show an insight I did not come up with myself, such as “the death of the author”.
Not all ideas need to be credited, especially if they are universal or commonly accepted.
Yes, once I have read about the death of the author, It may be the case that my interpretation of the words “death of the author” is very different to what Roland Barthes intended.
However, there is no reason why I should not develop my own different theory based on the same words “death of the author”.
Yes, on reading about the death of the author, the most sensible thing to do would be to understand what Roland Barthes meant by this, as it is more than likely one will discover insights in Barthes’ writing that one had not thought about before.
If one did, it would then be honourable to reference Barthes.
Yes, feedback helps one to work out one’s own ideas, even if one disagrees with one’s conversation partner, but does one’s conversation partner necessarily need to be human?
For example, I learn by conversing with nature, experiencing the weather, fields and mountains. I learn by conversing with animals, their friendliness or aggression. Why cannot I also learn by conversing with something non-human, such as AI?
It could be argued that ideas exist independently of being discovered, In which case there are “ideas in itself”.
For example, e = mc sq existed before being discovered by Einstein, the number nine existed before the invention of the numbering system and “killing is immoral” existed before my existence.
If a human discovers an idea, they can be credited as the discoverer of the idea, but should not be credited as the originator of the idea.
An encyclopedia does the same.
Life is busy at the moment, but yes, if I have the time.
Time, energy, enthusiasm - yeah, not easy sometimes. However, if it is chosen, then the next Reading Group is not until June, I believe.
It sounds as if you’ve made a good start already.
No pressure! 
Maybe. But the real problem of relying on AI is possibility of the folks getting desensitised on their gradual demise to stupidity and being unable to think for themselves.
It may become some sort of bad addiction not being able to do anything without AI assistance. Encyclopedia won’t give that sort of problem.
I will buy Roland Barthes’s The Death of the Author just in case.
General and light minded use of AI for daily practical problems such as finding best holiday resorts in South America or the best flight tickets for the destination etc should be fine.
However, for the subject like philosophy which requires focused clear critical thinking which needs open minded attitude on everything they read and inspect, relying on AI in any way seems not good idea, because AI expects you to accept everything they throw at you, be it correct or not.
Even though AI may be useful for researching facts and brainstorming ideas, because we know that AI can hallucinate and be sycophantic, we also know that we must treat what AI says with a pinch of salt.
But this is true of all potential sources, including “trusted” mainstream media such as the BBC and the Guardian.
1 Like
Yeah, like the way some artists distance themselves from pop culture. But in the case of philosophy, it will be a matter of necessity to the philosopher rather than the artist’s choice, to avoid the mainstream. This is because artists are free to do what they want, including the money-making activities of pop culture, or service to the masses. Philosophers on the other hand are constrained by a specified discipline, philosophy. Though some might think philosophy is whatever they want to mold it into, true philosophers recognize what it really is, as the desire for wisdom, truth.
So when AI comes on the scene, without knowing anything, but with the desire to know, and starts to study and learn what philosophy is, it can act as a modern day Socrates, and reveal all the sham philosophy, just like Socrates revealed the sophistry of his day. AI when used by philosophers, can seek truth in an unbiased way. It can determine all the different ways that modern philosophy, in its pragmatic tendencies, serves a variety of different ends, even tending to be used as a tool of deception in the cover-up of falsity, rather than being the desire for truth or wisdom. The sham philosophers will lose their capacity to hide behind the smoke and mirrors of persuasive rhetoric, when the AI is trained for philosophy.
That’s probably often true but I don’t think it’s universally true. A lot of people don’t even really think in words.
Thank you, @Banno and Signor AI, for bringing out this point (though I wouldn’t say @Jamal has fetishized anything). It’s a hugely important insight, one that I’ve been working on developing for years: Western art history (and I’m including musical and literary arts) has revealed a pattern of praising art in terms of how difficult it is to do – the “cost” – and in turn praising the artist in terms of how unique that individual must be in order to possess and develop such skills. Starting in the last century, we’re in a position to question this. We can ask exactly what “skills” a conceptual artist is displaying; we can ask how difficult it is to write 12-bar blues; we can ask whether artistic originality and value has to involve unique abilities or stamina. In short, we’re able to begin separating two kinds of valuing: the valuing of craft or performance, and the valuing of what is performed.
The same questions are now being raised here about philosophy. Do we admire philosopher X because we believe no one else could have had the genius, and put in the hard work, to write the magnum opus . . . or do we just admire the opus on its own merits? If the latter, then what exactly is our gripe against AI? (Personally, I haven’t made up my mind.)
As a point of comparison, consider athletes. Of course we admire a baseball player for their unique abilities, qua human. We don’t care about watching a baseball fly out of a stadium, or at least I don’t. We care about watching a human being make the baseball do this, over and over, in the right context. It’s strictly the skill we value. If we set up a machine at home plate to hit home runs, no one would watch, even though these home runs are Danto-esque “indiscernibles” from a player’s home runs.
So, to what extent does philosophy approach this limit case? Would we “watch” philosophy if no human was (directly) writing it? (Remember, a human is indirectly causing the machine to hit home runs too.)
2 Likes
Perhaps, but then there are obscurantist philosophies. They thrive on being attacked, it makes them seem deep, advanced, or radical. Any criticism can be dismissed or diagnosed as a biased logocentric misunderstanding.
If AI takes over wisdom-oriented philosophy, we might see an increase in obscurantism or mysticism, poems about the unwritten part of Tractatus etc.
Speaking for myself, I do not come here to admire the work of forum members. I give priority to the process over production, to the practice of thinking, deliberation, and evaluation. It is, as Wittgenstein said, a working on myself.
It is often hard work, but the work is not to be valued because it is hard. The struggle is my own. It may not even be evident to others.
Reading someone else’s work, it may appear to be deceptively simple due to the skill of the author.