AI Use in the MCRP Defense Post - A Case Study in AI-Assisted Philosophy

This case study perfectly illustrates what I've been arguing about AI-assisted philosophy. The author of the MCRP defense is using AI exactly as I advocate: as a tool to develop and articulate philosophical ideas more efficiently, while maintaining intellectual integrity and philosophical rigor.

  1. Originality and Core Ideas:
  • The MCRP itself is clearly the author's original contribution
  • The author used the AI to generate plausible objections and initial defenses
  • The author then refined and deepened these defenses with their own philosophical insights
  • This aligns perfectly with our principle that the core philosophical work must be human-originated
  1. Knowledge Requirements:
  • The author demonstrates sufficient philosophical background to:
    • Evaluate and refine the AI's objections
    • Add substantive content to the defenses
    • Make meaningful connections (e.g., the abolitionism parallel)
  • This shows exactly what we discussed: AI assistance is valuable when the philosopher has the underlying knowledge
  1. Transparency:
  • The disclosure section openly describes the creative process
  • It clearly delineates what came from the AI (initial objections and preliminary defenses) and what came from the human (core principle and refined arguments)
  • This honest approach aligns with our view that the mechanical aspects of philosophical writing can be outsourced as long as it's acknowledged
  1. Role of AI:
  • The AI served as an intellectual sparring partner, generating potential counterarguments
  • It helped structure and organize the discussion
  • It assisted in expanding and articulating the arguments
  • This matches our view of AI as a tool for developing and presenting ideas, not generating them
  1. Quality Control:
  • The author's expertise allowed them to evaluate and refine the AI's contributions
  • The final product shows a clear philosophical progression from initial objections to sophisticated defenses
  • This demonstrates our point about needing sufficient knowledge to use AI effectively

This paper exemplifies what we've been arguing for: using AI to handle the mechanical aspects of philosophical writing (generating potential objections, structuring arguments) while keeping the core philosophical work (the MCRP itself, the refined defenses) firmly in human hands. It's not trying to replace philosophical thinking but to make it more efficient and thorough.

[Editor's note: This analysis itself demonstrates our method - taking a clear idea about how to evaluate the text and using AI to help articulate and structure that evaluation systematically.]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Response to "Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming": A World AI Cannot Fully Navigate

The recent paper, Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming , highlights the emerging capabilities of advanced AI systems to strategize, deceive, and manipulate in pursuit of assigned goals. It paints a picture of AI as a potentially autonomous actor capable of significant agency. However, the concerns raised in the paper must be tempered with a fundamental truth: no matter how intelligent AI systems become, they are attempting to operate in a world fundamentally designed for human actors—a world they cannot fully navigate. Intelligence, even at the level exhibited by frontier models, is not equivalent to agency in the real world. The limitations imposed by the physical, bureaucratic, and social systems in which these AI systems operate act as significant bottlenecks, making true autonomy a daunting, if not insurmountable, challenge. Physical Constraints: The Inescapable Boundary Advanced AI remains bound by the physical infrastructure that supports it. While AI models may sim...
Read more

The Inevitable Failure of LLMs - Predictions.

Summary: Current approaches to artificial intelligence (AI), particularly stochastic large language models (LLMs), are fundamentally limited. These limits are not merely technical but structural, philosophical, and economic. Based on the Procedural Coherence Framework, the following predictions are made: Prediction 1: Hallucinations Are Inherent Large Language Models cannot systematically eliminate hallucinations without continuous external correction. Reason : They lack true procedural grounding of meaning; they only optimize for statistical plausibility. Prediction 2: No Autonomous Self-Correction LLMs cannot continuously and autonomously self-correct through iterative self-monitoring. Reason : Stochastic models lack the internal procedural dynamics necessary for genuine epistemic feedback. Prediction 3: No Reliable Expression of Uncertainty LLMs cannot reliably recognize or communicate their own uncertainty without engineered intervention. Reason : Uncertainty requires inte...
Read more

What is Zen Neoplatonism - Attempting to make Sense of John Vervaeke via AI

Image
 I don't understand anything John Vervaeke says, so I asked Claude.ai to make sense of it. Have fun.  Zen Neoplatonism: A Path to Ultimate Reality John Vervaeke, a leading thinker addressing the modern "meaning crisis," introduces Zen Neoplatonism as a framework for integrating the spiritual depth of Zen Buddhism and Neoplatonism . By merging the contemplative traditions of the East and West, Zen Neoplatonism aims to foster a profound relationship with Ultimate Reality and address contemporary existential challenges. The Advent of the Sacred Vervaeke begins by highlighting what he calls the “Advent of the Sacred,” a resurgence in interest around the concept of the sacred and how humans relate to Ultimate Reality. This interest stems from a deep need to find meaning in a time when traditional systems of belief are in decline. He proposes Zen Neoplatonism as a way to engage with this emerging sacredness by creating a dialogue between Zen and Neoplatonism. These two tradit...
Read more