Are we thanking Banno for breaking the rules by quoting AI? Are the AI enthusiasts unable to make a case for AI without breaking the rules and relying on AI to come to their aid? This would seem to somewhat prove the point in question.
So much of this thread is based in misrepresentation: making mountains out of molehills. Go read the guidelines which Jamal referenced in one of his first posts. There is nothing about “how difficult it is to do.” There is nothing about plagiarism. The reason Banno is seizing on these asides is because he thinks they are susceptible to critique.
This is a fairly common approach in eristic. You fish out a weaker claim someone has made in relation to an important topic, you try to construe it as if that weaker claim is the central claim, you critique the weaker claim, and then you claim victory with regard to the important topic. In this case the weaker claim also happens to be a caricature of what was actually said.
I’d suggest that it is not so able as much as you are able to do these things and so can find suitable uses for it with respect to philosophy.
That is, you’ve done the work such that an enhancer actually benefits your ability. What I’ve seen of AI is that if one already knows a subject then it can help them pursue that subject because they know what they’re looking for already.
But part of the role of this site, in my estimation, is also popular and educational, and I see ceding ground to AI as a good way to short-circuit people actually learning how to think. Many of my students already do this to themselves: there are some you can see who use it productively to learn, but there are also students who utilize it to do what you’d expect students to do.
That is, we’re not a research institution here.
But we are, what I think of at least, a sort of creative space for people of any skill level. So the quality part isn’t something I’m as worried about as much as whether a person is actually reflecting and considering different perspectives, is willing to acknowledge difficulties in their own thinking, and so on.
Now, pride and bombast are just parts of the internet so this is very much an “ideal” we don’t always live up to.
But, yeah, I pretty much oppose AI not because of the products – sure if you’re trained you can utilize it to assist you in what you see as the goal of philosophy – but because the process is an important part of the product, namely that being our mind and the ability to exercise our minds together.
Excellent response. It’s one that I often make myself, in the fields of music and writing. There’s a personal reason, a reason for the artist themselves, to value the making of art. It’s good for you, quite apart from whether the product is any great shakes. We have to add this value to the other types of values I’ve already mentioned.
And yes, I see every reason why this would be true for philosophers as well. As for AI, well, in an odd way they can “personally benefit” from “doing philosophy” – they can get better at doing what they’ve been designed to do – but the need for scare-quotes is telling. They aren’t persons, and they are unaware of anything called doing philosophy, at least according to me. Thus this sort of value is unavailable to them.
EDIT
And having now seen @Moliere 's reply, they are getting at the same thing – process at the least equal to product. I too would like people to be reflective and teachable by engaging in a philosophical process, but would an AI interlocutor hinder this, if we’re sincere in our goal? This is all too new an issue for me to have formed strong opinions yet.
Banno is here claiming that AI can be legitimately used within a thread which is about whether the AI rule should be repealed (or in a thread where people are being allowed to argue that the AI rule should be repealed). He claims that this maps to the exception about “AI threads,” such as those that Pierre-Normand has published in the past.
This is surely false. A thread discussing the phenomenon of AI is much different from a thread regarding the rule against AI-generated posts. It is obviously contrary to the rule to make a thread intended to repeal the rule, and to rely on AI-generated posts to justify one’s position within that thread.
I think if you were pacing the floor all night long trying to figure out whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was moral or not, and you got a reply from an AI that just put the whole issue to rest, that would be kind of sad, because there’s a whole huge Nihilistic Reformation you might have missed out on (unless the AI opened the door to it for you).
To me, that’s the coolest thing about the way humans have kept philosophy alive over time: not that it puts things to rest, but that it allows the thinker to discover that she’s not alone. Others have also climbed through various reformations on the way to no where in particular.
Interesting. Are you suggesting that the AI would be more capable of doing this than a human would be? To me, it would be sad no matter who (or what) succeeded in “putting the whole issue to rest” – but then, since I don’t think it’s possible to do that, the whole thing is kind of moot.
My view (just my own) is that I don’t see the value of AI re-writes, clarifications, or anything of the sort. I use it to respond to my posts personally to see if there is something I might have missed and I even ask it to clarify and do research. I do not post anything without first finding a primary or reliable secondary source for what it says. I’ve borrowed a word it’s used before, but I don’t use its sentences or thoughts or structure as templates. If I can’t say it in my own words with my own original thoughts added, its not mine to post.
Sometimes AI is full of shit. Other times, you argue with it and it changes its mind, indicating your own brain was better than it’s brain was.
I do not believe the quality of posts has increased since the AI era that began not so long ago. The posts have gotten ridiculously long, filled with headers, bullet points, and numbered arguments and objections, something that would have taken countless hours to produce. The posts are basically long discussions that are considerably weaker than online philosophy journals and sites, which I’d read if I had the time. I’m being asked to believe our posters have suddenly become capable of cranking out dissertations daily.
I see this site as a discussion board, not as a chance to vomit out AI created content. I can do that on my own.
So, to the extent a post was eliminated due to it being AI, I think that’s good. Just stop doing it. Err on the side of compliance, not in looking for the gray area where it’s unclear.
I was saying that there’s an experiential dimension to philosophy that AI text couldn’t take the place of, not that the experience is ever any monumental achievement, it’s probably the same type of experience over and over for thousands of years, but when it’s happening to you, it’s the first time.
For me, those experiences are usually coming from life, not a philosopher. A philosopher is a touchstone. Understanding a philosopher isn’t a destination, in other words. So to the extent that we object to AI presentations, it’s probably more to do with an academic angle: did you do the homework yourself, do you actually own the content, etc. The other thing is just being respectful in a discussion. If I push a wad of AI at you, why am I even talking to you?
I’m starting to think the problem is so obvious that it will inevitably sort itself out once one reaps the fruits of a rule that allows this sort of thing.
(Leontiskos, October 2025)
At this point, the idea that one should allow AI-generated content is a non-starter for anyone who runs an internet forum. As I said in my first post above, there are virtually no forums which allow this. The objectors should set up their own forum where AI-generated content is allowed. After a day or two of real-world experience they would realize how impossible their position is.
I’d like to see a forum where AIs would interact with each other, and even debate each other. Maybe we could provide a special corner of tpf, the AI ring, where AIs would be encouraged to run amok, with as little human intervention as possible.
I think your analogies with music and sports are enlightening. I am reminded of an idea that struck me as a conundrum in the past. Kant has argued that someone who chooses to act well in spite of a strong desire or inclination to the contrary is most praiseworthy (because they display in so choosing genuine respect for the moral law). Aristotle’s attitude is seemingly the opposite. The virtuous person is recognized as such, and hence praiseworthy, inasmuch as their character is such as to silence the inclination to act contrary to what it is that wisdom (phronesis) recommends. To be inclined to act well (desire what is good, have good habits) just is what it is to be virtuous, and is therefore admirable. But Kant and Aristotle aren’t actually disagreeing. We find the person (or child) who resists their own bad inclinations praiseworthy for doing so proleptically, and our reactive attitudes towards them (such as praise and blame), as well as their own reflexive attitudes (such as pride and shame/regret/dissatisfaction) function as scaffolds for the maintenance and nurturing of their ethical formation.
Likewise, in the case of a young piano student, say, there is no contradiction between deeming praiseworthy a not very talented student who achieves moderate success through intense dedicated work and also admiring (and singling out for praise) a talented one who effortlessly performs well.
The lack of a contradiction stems from the fact that the communal practices (craft, art, sport, etc.) have a broadly agreed-upon formal telos (beauty, craftsmanship, sportsmanship, etc.), and our admiring both effortfulness (proleptically, in some cases) and effortlessness (in the present performance, in other cases) is geared towards nurturing the same teloi.
In the case of philosophy, there may not be one single agreed-upon telos, but one that is broadly valued is the fostering of understanding by means of discussion and dialogue. What I aim to express is something like a via media between posters on this thread who argue that the use of AI in the context of philosophical discussion is harmful because it deprives the poster of the benefits that accrue from effortfully expressing their ideas and those who argue that it’s beneficial since the goal just is to produce the best arguments and arrive at the truth. I personally agree with the current official moderation policy on TPF that posters must write their own posts, and hence refrain from copy/pasting AI outputs, except as examples in threads that are explicitly about AI. So, I want to suggest that the policy is good since it encourages both the valuable effortfulness, when necessary, and, on the other hand, doesn’t prohibit preliminary discussions with AI while one thinks through their responses. But I also want to suggest that even in the case where one might not need to exert such efforts to produce a post with objectively good content, as it were, letting AI write one’s own posts, or formulate/unpack one’s own ideas, still is harmful because it hinders our interlocutors from understanding us (where one comes from, biographically and intellectually), and the careful nurturing of this mutual understanding is partially constitutive of philosophy’s telos.
Ideally we admire the opus. Often, however, there’s the aura around the “profound philosopher.” I believe that most of us are drawn to the aura, as an ego-ideal perhaps, and that some of us come to prefer the opus, especially as we see, with more exposure, that no philosopher is as creative as they first appear. It’s all connected. The strongest philosophers are precisely those who listened best and knew where the new note was needed.
Perhaps you know of Burroughs’ cut up method ? While chatbots are better in many ways, we could contemplate randomly generated sentences. If I find a great one, then I am curating. I take responsibility as curator. I may come to be valued as such. “Let’s see what jj dug up for us this time.”
But I also want to talk to humans, or even “sentient” aliens, who suffer the world. And enjoy the world. I want to share in the manifestation of the world with them through language. I don’t take chatbots to be “sentient,” so this they cannot give me.
But a movie like Ex Machina suggests that I could be “satisfied” with a sufficiently human-like android. Not that “she” was completely convincing, but the next iteration ? And frankly there’s the beauty of Viklander, which biased Caleb, no ? When do I cease to notice or care ?
I can’t “prove” that others are “conscious.” I act on some vague belief that the world is also “there” for them. Or, a cynic might say, I just learned to treat meat differently. Practically speaking, I don’t “feel” this issue. No living doubt about people in my life. But I grant its theoretical stickiness. In 200 years, it may become a living issue, as shown in Spielberg’s film AI. That little boy android missing his mother was powerful. Suffrage for droids !
Quite frankly, I’m still at a loss as to why including AI generated quotes (that are clearly indicated as such) as a source of additional information should be prohibited while including quotes from various other authors as a source of additional information are allowed. Neither are the “voice” of the poster which seemed to be your reason for prohibiting it that you gave on another thread.
Your reasoning was far from “abundant”, much less adequate.
Rather than pretending you’ve tried to think of reasons why we might disallow such quotations, try actually thinking.
Quite frankly, I’m at a loss as to why you think this kind of rhetoric is a good contribution to the debate. We are trying to make the forum better. Please act like you want to be part of that effort or stay out of it.
Yes. You need to reevaluate. The point of my post was to make sure that you consider what I wrote as part of your reevaluation in the hopes that you WILL make this site better.
Why are you being unreasonably snippy both here and on the other thread?
AI frequently misquotes, misattributes, quotes out of context obscuring or implying something not relevant/factual, or is flat out wrong. It’s at the bottom of just about every AI app or interface: “AI can make mistakes” or something along those lines.
AI is not “an author” it’s a machine that puts stuff together the best it can. While this can be compared to most authors, actual authors or sources preserve something very vital that ambiguous AI copy and pasting does not: the chain of accountability.
If legendary philosopher Francis Bacon or say, King Henry VIII said something flat out wrong or illogical, we can say “hey, legendary philosopher Francis Bacon or King Henry VIII made a mistake (or at least possibly made a mistake and therefore said statement is worth debating).” Whereas, if you, a random person quotes AI and makes a mistake, it’s just an annoyance that has no place in any intellect-oriented forum.
With no intention of being condescending, if you need or otherwise refuse not to use AI to communicate and understand philosophy, perhaps a simpler site—such as Reddit—might be better suited for you than one that depends on true intellectual rigor and grit derived solely from the mind and wit or the person, such as this one. This is for the big boys. I’m quite the novice myself, which is why I tend not to post much other than in Feedback or the Lounge. So don’t feel bad.
If you need AI, you have much to learn, and you’ll be much better off listening, reading, and learning from others who can contend and hold their arguments without assistance, not replying or posting, until you can understand and better communicate from your own faculties alone. Just my opinion. That I’m fairly certain is shared by a great many who frequent this and others sites similar.
I enjoyed all of your response, and this portion especially caught my eye. Looking at sport, art, or any other communally recognized activity through the lens of telos is interesting. I agree that it removes any appearance of contradiction between our admiration of both effort (hard work) and effortlessness (native talent).
But can this also remove the contradiction between admiring the process and admiring the product? To return to the baseball analogy, there just isn’t anything intrinsically admirable about what baseball players do, unless these things are done by human beings. And this probably applies to games in general. Do we admire a “gin” hand? Why would we? What’s interesting or valuable about it? Our appreciation is entirely contextual, and depends on our appreciation of the process by which the hand was produced, namely by the skillful play of a human.
Art is arguably different, and so is philosophy, as you explain. With art and phil, we have products that may move and enlighten us regardless of the process which produced them. (Though I recognize that some on TPF don’t think that’s possible.) I can say without contradiction, “I am moved and enlightened both by the philosophy of Quine and by my pleasure in communing with such a clever human being. I also get pleasure from imagining how writing From a Logical Point of View must have been valuable for him, because I like to picture humans learning and flourishing.”
The problem comes up when we try to say that the telos must involve the process. We might say, “Sorry, but if, per impossibile, Fear and Trembling was produced by a Burroughsian random text generator, I no longer accept that it has reached its telos.” This is a similar claim to one that @Christoffer makes elsewhere – that certain processes are required for the end product to have value, or even coherence, and that the absence of these processes is definitive in regard to whether the thing has been done at all.
My take: It depends on which products we’re talking about, but the thread running through this may be, Is the telos valuable in itself, or does its value depend upon background knowledge concerning its generative process?
