As AI becomes a new trend as something (supernatural), possessing massive incredible power to generate intelligence, which is followed by ideas, thoughts, problem solving, etc., for the first time in human history something like that would happen.
Well, I’m questioning the future of philosophy. Will it create new concepts or even invent new philosophies? Will we still need philosophy and philosophers? Will philosophy still exist to do the job it has been doing for thousands of years? What is the future of philosophy? Or are we facing dramatic changes in the whole concept system? Something will happen that we never thought or imagined would happen that can change it?
You know, there is a button with a star icon, you can ask it to proofread your text.
does he will create new concepts or even invent new philopsophies, ?
It already can but I don’t think those concepts aren’t usually interesting.
does we will still need philosophy and ( philosophers ) ?
In what sense do we “need” them today?
But if you think we “need” them then we still will need them presumably.
does philosophy will still exist to do it job which has been doing for thousands of year ,.?
It will still exist.
what the future of philosophy , ?
Nothing suggests it will be different from the past.
or we are facing a dramitical changes in the whole concpet system ( something will happend we never think or imagine would happend that can chang ) ?
We aren’t.
I may seem very dismissive, but I do keep an eye on the AI space, and as far as I know, they don’t really try to “attack” philosophy. One thing that seems true is that for AI to be really good at something, the companies must specifically try to train the AIs for that thing. We saw that with that one GPT model that was very good (for an LLM) at chess because, apparently, the researchers really trained the model on chess, thinking it would generalize to other domains. We do see big advancements in coding and math, for example, but again, those fields are specifically targeted, unlike philosophy.
To the extent that any human ability is commodified, becomes something to be sold (by laborers) and purchased (by capital owners) on the labor market, and to the extent that AI can automate intellectual labor, then the rise of AI threatens the philosophical profession as much as it does any other intellectual profession, and as much as technological progress threatens all professions in general. But that’s a problem engendered by the market economy more than it is ascribable to technological progress, in my view.
As for the prospect of AI doing philosophy instead of us doing it (regardless of its commodification), one can compare the case of the board games chess and Go. It’s been a while now since AI systems have become much stronger than humans at those games. Yes, the games have increased in popularity rather than decreasing. That’s because the point of the game is the enjoyment of being a player; people have mostly used AI to improve themselves rather than being replaced by it (except in the occasional case where people use AI to cheat). As is the case with sports, games, and arts, there is little prospect for AI doing philosophy for us, though it may threaten the status of professional philosophers slightly, since they will no longer have the monopoly on teaching. The point of those activities is how we get enriched through practicing them, not having them done. And the AI systems can’t do them in a way that’s enriching to themselves, since they have no stakes in the matter. So, they’re not competitors outside of the commodified marketplaces.
It cannot think, ergo it cannot create new ideas. It is an intelligence SIMULATOR not actually intelligent in the human sense of the word. This does not make it any less powerful though.