top of page

The A.I Philosopher -- How A.I Could Even Replace Human Philosophers (And How to Compete As Humans)

Updated: 2 days ago

The Rise of the AI Sage

Imagine a world where the answers to all your deepest philosophical questions are just a tap away. No more wrestling with complex texts or enduring the frustrations of unanswered queries. This hypothetical future presents a fascinating question: With an all-knowing AI philosopher at our fingertips, will human philosophers become obsolete?

The concept of a superintelligent computer holding the key to life's mysteries might sound familiar. Works like "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" explored this theme, although with a humorous twist – the answer (42) lacked meaning without context.

Now, picture this: An app that harnesses the vast knowledge of the internet, coupled with a philosophical library fed by programmers. This digital sage could produce answers on demand, bypassing the need for human contemplation, and the shortcomings that it may take on the human mind.

This scenario parallels the way libraries have evolved. While libraries remain invaluable for in-depth research, quick answers often come from a simple Google search, and arguably from libraries as well. Much of technology is about saving you time and effort, often leading you to the brink of being lazy. Similarly, the AI philosopher could become the go-to for readily available solutions, despite the complexity of many questions and issues involved.

However, is the death of human philosophy truly imminent? Here's why it's not that simple:

The rise of the "AI philosopher" may signal a drastic change in the landscape of philosophy. However, it's unlikely to be a complete replacement. That is especially true when AI content that is based on itself actually gets worse. To quote researchers sourced from the Futurism Blog:

"Seismic advances in generative AI algorithms for imagery, text, and other data types has led to the temptation to use synthetic data to train next-generation models," the researchers write. "Repeating this process creates an autophagous ('self-consuming') loop whose properties are poorly understood."
"Our primary conclusion across all scenarios is that without enough fresh real data in each generation of an autophagous loop, future generative models are doomed to have their quality (precision) or diversity (recall) progressively decrease," they added. "We term this condition Model Autophagy Disorder (MAD)".

A New Challenger!

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving, becoming a worthy adversary to anyone, including myself, who wishes to see the AI evolution as but a challenge to my skills. Yes, I treat this technological feat as if it was an enemy I had to face in a game of Tekken.

But of course, AI's reach extends far beyond video games and chess, as it's also a worthy opponent to face in the arena that is philosophical discourse. With the powerful ability to learn far better than your average human, along with its inability to suffer from mental health issues (as they still lack the depth of consciousness required), they can put any fatigued intellect to submission using their quick response and highly detailed replies.

But the difference between myself and the fatigued intellect, is that I am no longer fatigued. Make studying and researching a habit, and regularly work to master the art of article-writing, and you might as well be a worthy match of this new metallic challenger. Remember: AI lacks much features that humans are capable of, as demonstrated earlier in the article.

Why do you think I work relentlessly on Philosocom? I'm well aware of the changing work environment, and I devised not only a training regimen but also my own, Rubinshteinic philosophy towards content generation. I seek to do what my general philosophy was designed to do: Help me endure reality.

So, in order to preserve my legacy, I'm going to do whatever I can to not make my mind a liability compared to the fast-growing development of AI generation technology. Therefore, in order to survive in this capitalist world, all I have to do is to be the superior supplier of the demand you're after: High-quality philosophical articles.

Of course the consumer is going to enjoy the better product. All I need to do is to renovate Philosocom to enhance the content to the very product my dear readership is after, correct?

Personalized Gurus or Big Brother in Disguise?

Now, imagine an AI philosopher that knows you better than you know yourself. It analyzes your browsing history, purchases, and location. It would do so for the same reasoning social media platforms do the same as we speak: Craft personalized answers to your philosophical inquiry. Do you already see the problem? I'm not referring to you giving up your privacy for a service. I'm referring to you receiving the answers you want to hear.

The issue with philosophy is that people don't always want to hear the truth, even if they tell themselves that they do. To better promote themselves in society, people would lie under ulterior motives, because telling the truth comes with the social risks.

Remember that many AI applications are engineered by what would call "virtual dictatorships", all these unelected internet, media and data companies who influence much of our thinking. ChatGPT, which is the hallmark of OpenAI, is as of April 2024 owned largely by Microsoft, with a whooping 49% of its stocks at their possession.

Of course, shareholders have control over the product, for they are the ultimate owners of their respective companies. With so much influence, massive corporate empires can alter the nature of the product which they control over, without necessarily telling you, the consumer. That's how things are professionally done: discreetly.

This notion contains a dangerous potential: You would think that the AI app you're using is reliable, while in reality... it just isn't. It cannot quite examine critically the material it is trained on. You know... Something philosophers ought to do, including towards their own intellects, too.

Why, then, use an unreliable source for your philosophical inquiries? Why use a subpar thinking simulator?

Of course you should think for yourselves, but if you want a true thinker to exchange ideas with you, maybe pick the human option.

Maybe pick, Philosocom.

Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback

There is one reason why AI can never answer questions which humans can’t. AI can only do what it is programmed to do. If the important questions haven’t been figured out by humans, then it is impossible that AI can [do otherwise]. The exception being, it can provide answers which are missed by humans, due to all the information being available but we haven’t pieced it together yet.
AI can only do what it is told to do, so if we can teach it to piece stuff together for us. It isn’t doing anything which humans can’t do. AI just has access to more information than humans do. That is all AI is good for, being a portrayer of existing human knowledge. Why will it never be able to do anything which humans currently can’t do?
A primary missing component from AI is free thought and creativity, AI can’t make something out of nothing. That is the difference between AI and Humans: Originality.
AI also has awareness. Not awareness in a free will kind of way. But as with humans aren’t we less aware of our system than AI is? AI can detect its own system better but only because humans taught it to do so.
Is creativity nothing more then organizing things in the correct order? A random occurrence so to speak of which AI can do random occurrences as well: Random image generation. Maybe in an order that hasn’t been used before. Is there a difference between random and creativity? Both involve creating content which doesn’t exist.
The difference is that humans can put things in a different, more enjoyable, order and AI can only do random, no thought to determine a conscious new order to put things in. AI can never put content into a different creative order. It can only throw stuff in random places. Why it can never do creativity, is because creativity involves utilizing things which aren’t there and all of AI’s resulting products are nothing more then coding and doing what humans have told it to do.

102 views0 comments


Tomasio A. Rubinshtein, Philosocom's Founder & Writer

I am a philosopher from Israel, author of several books in 2 languages, and Quora's Top Writer of the year 2018. I'm also a semi-hermit who has decided to dedicate his life to writing and sharing my articles across the globe. Several podcasts on me, as well as a radio interview, have been made since my career as a writer. More information about me can be found here.

צילום מסך 2023-11-02 202752.png
bottom of page