ChatGPT answers metaphysical questions :)

[AshvinP]

True, there is a gradient. It's a personal opinion, but for my part I am wary of suggestions for better words or phrasing. I don't ignore those suggestions in work emails, but here I don't do it, despite the issues with my words and phrasing. What does "better" mean in "better phrasing"? Are you pursuing better phrasing here with the intention of being better understood by others? How would AI phrasing be better than your original?

I moved the posts here. The goal is always for the phrasing to most precisely and faithfully convey the relevant inner experiences that I am trying to point attention toward. There are many times when the suggested modifications, although perhaps technically more refined, feel like they lead away from that goal. In that case, I reject the modification or only use some part of it.

Anyway, yes, what I was complaining about is rather the full-blown type, including when it's only for a paragraph, or to write a conclusion. In a strange way this trend is helpful because, as a contextual sensitivity for detecting AI language is developed, the occult value of language may become more approachable.

I agree, when we remain conscious of the differences between token-sequencing of well-worn intellectual concepts and organic writing that is focused from within a rich intuitive context, it is better to appreciate the value of what we are doing in the latter and its vital role in the progressive evolutionary process.

By the way, for anyone interested, there was an interesting 'declaration' by various prominent mathematicians about tempering the use of AI to solve mathematical problems. It makes some interesting points about the wider context in which 'solving mathematical problems' occurs, especially when seen from a spiritual perspective. I also reflected on it as follows:

"I think it’s also a general reflection on the self-constrained pathways of human intellectual thinking. The type of ‘creative’ thinking done by the latter now only leads to outputs that can be more efficiently and accurately generated by AI. This broadly applies to all intellectual domains of inquiry, but it becomes especially clear in mathematical research - thinking moves through supersensible relations but strips away all qualitative experience and constrains its movements to only quantifiable states. Thinking then lingers at the threshold of the supersensible but refuses to faithfully take any steps further, instead striving to cram the supersensible that it continually lives through into these quantitative constraints. It seeks to remain as a detached observer that builds quantitative models and tests reality against them, instead of feeling how its modeling activity is always embedded within and shaped by that reality.

The dynamics of AI referenced in the article should prompt the intellectual soul to reflect on this self-constrained nature of its movements and begin intuiting ways to loosen those constraints, thus spiritualizing its movements through supersensible relations. It should help us realize that our cognitive development has stalled when our mechanical creations can generate the same outputs more efficiently and accurately than our intellectual movements do. Unfortunately, that almost never happens. All the focus shifts to preserving those constrained intellectual movements in the face of AI, as if it were a God-given right that we must defend, instead of an atavistic modality that we need to sacrifice for something truly new to be born from the ashes.

Once truly spiritual thinking is born, these petitions will no longer be needed, because future breakthroughs in science and technology will come through movements of moral intuitions and imaginations that AI cannot possibly replicate or quantitatively magnify."

[Federica]

Please, Ashvin, let's put a stop to this travesty when you keep reporting AI generated texts. These reports do not transcribe human voices. The first quote above which you call JW is 100% AI generated not AI assisted. The second which you call Guney is 89% AI generated, not AI assisted. What is the point of reporting these texts? Is this all of a sudden the new accepted way of "discussing these questions"?

[AshvinP]

Please, Ashvin, let's put a stop to this travesty when you keep reporting AI generated texts. These reports do not transcribe human voices. The first quote above which you call JW is 100% AI generated not AI assisted. The second which you call Guney is 89% AI generated, not AI assisted. What is the point of reporting these texts? Is this all of a sudden the new accepted way of "discussing these questions"?

With AI generated content, my primary concern is the effect on those who rely on it incessantly. I am not at all concerned about my ability to gain value from the generated content, precisely because of prior inner efforts, nor the ability of others on this forum who can also gain that value if they choose to (and obviously no one is forced to read the content). As we have discussed before, AI generated content is not completely disconnected from the intellectual human perspective, outside the realm of 'human voices'. When interacting with it, we are in a sense interacting with the statistically weighted outputs of collective human intellectual intelligence. In the case of JW, perhaps we are interacting with an LLM trained specifically on his previous outputs, and thus an extension of his intelligence. In any case, there is no need for external forum legislation here, and I personally don't choose to set rigid conditions on what source of content I can interact with or share. If I feel that the AI generation has reached a stage where my ideas aren't even being remotely considered and addressed anymore, I may choose to stop. You are free to set those conditions for yourself, of course.

[Güney27]

Please, Ashvin, let's put a stop to this travesty when you keep reporting AI generated texts. These reports do not transcribe human voices. The first quote above which you call JW is 100% AI generated not AI assisted. The second which you call Guney is 89% AI generated, not AI assisted. What is the point of reporting these texts? Is this all of a sudden the new accepted way of "discussing these questions"?

I mainly use AI to translate texts that I write in German. The thinking and reasoning behind them are entirely my own. Sometimes I record my thoughts and have AI transcribe them, but I always check whether it has added or introduced anything that wasn’t part of my original thinking.

I don’t ask AI to come up with philosophical arguments or responses for me. I only use it as a formal tool. That said, AI does make the texts look somewhat similar stylistically, and I agree that it shouldn’t be used to generate philosophical thoughts or arguments on someone’s behalf.

[Federica]

Please, Ashvin, let's put a stop to this travesty when you keep reporting AI generated texts. These reports do not transcribe human voices. The first quote above which you call JW is 100% AI generated not AI assisted. The second which you call Guney is 89% AI generated, not AI assisted. What is the point of reporting these texts? Is this all of a sudden the new accepted way of "discussing these questions"?

With AI generated content, my primary concern is the effect on those who rely on it incessantly. I am not at all concerned about my ability to gain value from the generated content, precisely because of prior inner efforts, nor the ability of others on this forum who can also gain that value if they choose to (and obviously no one is forced to read the content). As we have discussed before, AI generated content is not completely disconnected from the intellectual human perspective, outside the realm of 'human voices'. When interacting with it, we are in a sense interacting with the statistically weighted outputs of collective human intellectual intelligence. In the case of JW, perhaps we are interacting with an LLM trained specifically on his previous outputs, and thus an extension of his intelligence. In any case, there is no need for external forum legislation here, and I personally don't choose to set rigid conditions on what source of content I can interact with or share. If I feel that the AI generation has reached a stage where my ideas aren't even being remotely considered and addressed anymore, I may choose to stop. You are free to set those conditions for yourself, of course.

Yes, you are interacting with the statistically weighted outputs of collective human intellectual intelligence. But what is the point of posting your interactions with a statistical compound, or an external extension of someone's intelligence, while at the same time making it look as if it belonged to an individual soul? That is the travesty, obviously. If you enjoy showing how you joust with an LLM, be it. But I do find it inacceptable that you disguise the whole thing for something that it is not. The connection between a soul and an intellectual output is mainly lost, but you make it look as if there is one.

[AshvinP]

Yes, you are interacting with the statistically weighted outputs of collective human intellectual intelligence. But what is the point of posting your interactions with a statistical compound, or an external extension of someone's intelligence, while at the same time making it look as if it belonged to an individual soul? That is the travesty, obviously. If you enjoy showing how you joust with an LLM, be it. But I do find it inacceptable that you disguise the whole thing for something that it is not. The connection between a soul and an intellectual output is mainly lost, but you make it look as if there is one.

I simply don't think referencing the person who utilized the LLM in the quote is deceitful, as they intended it to reflect their position (and it does that very well for standard philosophical positions, which are often associative linkings of concepts drawn from familiar intellectual standpoints over the last few centuries). That's especially true since I initially pointed out his responses were 100% AI generated. If you still disagree, then we can agree to strongly disagree on that point.

I am curious, as an aside, how you view my non-LLM responses that were shared. Even though I am often quoting things that Cleric or I have written before (but still trying to add a few new metaphorical angles and lines of reasoning here and there), I experience it as immensely rewarding to write and even read back later. I never feel like, "here we go again, rehashing the same phenomenological dynamics we have explored on the forum so many times before... what's even the point of doing this again and sharing it with others?" Instead, I feel like it is hard-to-come-by stimulation of deeper intuitions related to the most important existential questions of our time, especially hard to come by when the forum isn't exactly overflowing with content.

I get the feeling you view it differently, on the other hand, perhaps even in the opposite way. You call it jousting with an LLM, as if the main aim and value is in winning a debate. And as I mentioned to Guney before, if that was the main aim, then it would definitely be pointless, LLM or not. But the main value is instead what is stirred inwardly through the very process of meeting resistance from JW or his LLM and trying to creatively navigate that resistance, allowing old insights to be rekindled and refined, and fresh insights to grow and flourish. Do you not experience that in these 'discussions', leaving aside the LLM content? Put another way, if I took all my responses and wove them into an essay instead of using them as part of this exchange, would you still feel it is not too important for me to share on the forum?

[Federica]

Yes, you are interacting with the statistically weighted outputs of collective human intellectual intelligence. But what is the point of posting your interactions with a statistical compound, or an external extension of someone's intelligence, while at the same time making it look as if it belonged to an individual soul? That is the travesty, obviously. If you enjoy showing how you joust with an LLM, be it. But I do find it inacceptable that you disguise the whole thing for something that it is not. The connection between a soul and an intellectual output is mainly lost, but you make it look as if there is one.

I simply don't think referencing the person who utilized the LLM in the quote is deceitful, as they intended it to reflect their position (and it does that very well for standard philosophical positions, which are often associative linkings of concepts drawn from familiar intellectual standpoints over the last few centuries). That's especially true since I initially pointed out his responses were 100% AI generated. If you still disagree, then we can agree to strongly disagree on that point.

I am curious, as an aside, how you view my non-LLM responses that were shared. Even though I am often quoting things that Cleric or I have written before (but still trying to add a few new metaphorical angles and lines of reasoning here and there), I experience it as immensely rewarding to write and even read back later. I never feel like, "here we go again, rehashing the same phenomenological dynamics we have explored on the forum so many times before... what's even the point of doing this again and sharing it with others?" Instead, I feel like it is hard-to-come-by stimulation of deeper intuitions related to the most important existential questions of our time, especially hard to come by when the forum isn't exactly overflowing with content.

I get the feeling you view it differently, on the other hand, perhaps even in the opposite way. You call it jousting with an LLM, as if the main aim and value is in winning a debate. And as I mentioned to Guney before, if that was the main aim, then it would definitely be pointless, LLM or not. But the main value is instead what is stirred inwardly through the very process of meeting resistance from JW or his LLM and trying to creatively navigate that resistance, allowing old insights to be rekindled and refined, and fresh insights to grow and flourish. Do you not experience that in these 'discussions', leaving aside the LLM content? Put another way, if I took all my responses and wove them into an essay instead of using them as part of this exchange, would you still feel it is not too important for me to share on the forum?

First of all, I have moved my post (and related replies) back here where I intended to post it. Please, don't divert my posts from the thread where I intend to post them to another thread of your choice. Just as you can decide to post your interactions with AI generated content, I can comment in a particular place of my choice, and you cannot simply override that choice, as long as my post respects the forum rules. I have reasonable, factual, and I think easily understandable causes to intend to post these reflections here, and you can't override them just because you don't like them.

To your question above, if you took all your responses and wove them into an essay, that would be most likely very valuable and useful to share on the forum. I repeat, what I question is that AI generated text is presented and treated as if it had been thought by a particular individual. Even when the text is prose, the particular concepts, words, and formulations that a particular soul has produced are important. Just as it would be inappropriate to present, say, the seed exercise to an in-presence audience using a plastic seed, so I deem it inappropriate to present your own thoughts in a seamless 'dialogue' form, as if it was a real dialogue, whilst the replies do not correspond to human output but are plastic replies - no human soul produced that output, and so there is no dialogue.

[AshvinP]

First of all, I have moved my post (and related replies) back here where I intended to post it. Please, don't divert my posts from the thread where I intend to post them to another thread of your choice. Just as you can decide to post your interactions with AI generated content, I can comment in a particular place of my choice, and you cannot simply override that choice, as long as my post respects the forum rules. I have reasonable, factual, and I think easily understandable causes to intend to post these reflections here, and you can't override them just because you don't like them.

Yes, I can, and I will continue to do so, because your intent in posting side comments on that JW thread is obviously to disrupt my intent of sharing the dialogue and exploring its implications. It is basic forum courtesy to keep posts about a particular topic (like the AI-LLM use) on a thread related to that topic, instead of trying to disrupt another thread about a different topic.

To your question above, if you took all your responses and wove them into an essay, that would be most likely very valuable and useful to share on the forum. I repeat, what I question is that AI generated text is presented and treated as if it had been thought by a particular individual. Even when the text is prose, the particular concepts, words, and formulations that a particular soul has produced are important. Just as it would be inappropriate to present, say, the seed exercise to an in-presence audience using a plastic seed, so I deem it inappropriate to present your own thoughts in a seamless 'dialogue' form, as if it was a real dialogue, whilst the replies do not correspond to human output but are plastic replies - no human soul produced that output, and so there is no dialogue.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, noted.

[Federica]

First of all, I have moved my post (and related replies) back here where I intended to post it. Please, don't divert my posts from the thread where I intend to post them to another thread of your choice. Just as you can decide to post your interactions with AI generated content, I can comment in a particular place of my choice, and you cannot simply override that choice, as long as my post respects the forum rules. I have reasonable, factual, and I think easily understandable causes to intend to post these reflections here, and you can't override them just because you don't like them.

Yes, I can, and I will continue to do so, because your intent in posting side comments on that JW thread is obviously to disrupt my intent of sharing the dialogue and exploring its implications. It is basic forum courtesy to keep posts about a particular topic (like the AI-LLM use) on a thread related to that topic, instead of trying to disrupt another thread about a different topic.

My goal is evidently that my critique remains connected to the object of critique, otherwise it becomes almost impossible for anyone to evaluate the critique, once completely disconnected from its object. It is a very reasonable and valid motive. Your motive seems to be retort or irritation or you are simply trying to silence my critique by diverting it to a disconnected thread.

Also, you might recall, if I help you, that the description of "General Discussions" in this forum is: "Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns."

So you seem to ignore not only courtesy, but also how this section of the forum is supposed to be used and has been used countless times so far, when you now abuse your moderator role in this tasteless way.

Anyway, I'll let the posts stay here, and I'll leave you in the company of your lacking moral attitude on this one.