The A.I Philosopher -- How A.I Could Even Replace Human Philosophers (And How to Compete As Humans)
Updated: Apr 15
Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis
An AI app programmed with a philosophical library and access to vast internet knowledge could produce answers to philosophical questions, but would it replace human sages? There are several differences between AI and human thinkers.
Though AI can answer many questions, it can't replicate humans' intricate thinking process, which is unique for every person and crucial for philosophizing. Secondly, AI applications lack the depth of human experience based on consciousness and emotions, a cornerstone of philosophy.
Another significant difference is that humans possess originality, whereas AI is trained on pre-existing content. While human philosophers can innovate and adapt, AI is limited to reproducing old concepts. AI is evolving and becoming a worthy adversary to anybody who sees the AI revolution as a challenge.
The author works relentlessly on Philosocom and his Rubinshteinic philosophy to preserve his legacy by supplying superior, high-quality, human-made content.
Many AI applications are engineered by media and data companies to influence our thinking. An AI philosopher app might discretely analyze the users and craft personalized answers based on their preferences rather than the truth. The better option is to exchange ideas with a reliable human source, such as Philosocom.
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 Different Mechanisms: Philosophy thrives on the process of questioning, analyzing, and constructing arguments. An AI might offer answers, but it can't replicate the human intricate and adaptive thinking process, which is individual to every human brain. Due to the great variability between human brains, truly no human brain is alike, hallmarking the uniqueness of each "brand" of philosopher and their life's work.
The Depth of Human Experience: Much of what philosophy is, is grappling with highs and lows of human condition. This is impossible without some degree of awareness, as presented in my Flashlight Theory. Furthermore, it is debateable if AI applications have awareness due to them lacking key components in what allows human awareness. Lacking true consciousness and emotional depth, the AI might struggle to understand the intricacy of human emotions, experiences, and the complexities of existence. If anything, it would be able to simulate it, although without exactly understanding it as deeply as human subjectivity allows us to.
The Evolution of Thought: Philosophy adapts and grows alongside humanity. Human philosophers will continue to break new ground, posing questions unforeseen by an AI solely trained on existing knowledge. Because of human originality, that might as well exist in modern times, And yes, all AI is trained on existing, human-made content. The way AI is trained may often be compared to an author copying another author, which leads to the controversial arguement that AI is a form of theft.
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.
