Search Results
6/24/2025, 10:51:30 AM
>>24492102
>>24492103
It's funny that you could replace theological words with philosophy and end up with the same meaning. ChatGPT has such vacuous and inane criticisms. A real criticism of various theological doctrines is possible, although your LLM did not manage to create any.
One could imagine that in the future, "learning" and debate would consist of these little GPT-phorisms
>Odysseus wasn't a hero — he was a liar masquerading as a thinker. He wasn't some lost man — he was a misogynist returning to claim his property.
>You say he was a liar masquerading as a thinker? That's funny when you're a rhetorician masquerading as a philospher. Odysseus wasn't a liar — he was a pragmatist. He wasn't just a misogynist — he was a tragic man seeking his home.
>A tragic man seeking his home? You ignore the vast tapestry and rich cultural narratives to suit your narrow understanding of mythology — that's not understanding, it's dogma masquerading as depth.
And so on. In a sense, it will be a bit like dogfighting or—a bit more accurately, I would say—Pokémon. People won't so much as engage in the fight itself, but pick their champion fighters, like Claude, or Copilot, or whatever is available right now, and cheer them on based on the sassiness of the aphorism. I guess you could argue that it isn't a significant departure from prior modes of ignorant debate, but I think this is fundamentally different—at no point ever will a single thought be required to pass through the heads of either speaker. It will unending be and trade of empty rhetoric and GPT-aphorisms. Neither person will ever engage with the topic, nor will they understand why their chosen AI says the things that it does. They will accept it as factual because the great AI wrote it. One is led to remember Plato's story of Theuth in Phaedrus:
>when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Quite bleak.
>>24492103
It's funny that you could replace theological words with philosophy and end up with the same meaning. ChatGPT has such vacuous and inane criticisms. A real criticism of various theological doctrines is possible, although your LLM did not manage to create any.
One could imagine that in the future, "learning" and debate would consist of these little GPT-phorisms
>Odysseus wasn't a hero — he was a liar masquerading as a thinker. He wasn't some lost man — he was a misogynist returning to claim his property.
>You say he was a liar masquerading as a thinker? That's funny when you're a rhetorician masquerading as a philospher. Odysseus wasn't a liar — he was a pragmatist. He wasn't just a misogynist — he was a tragic man seeking his home.
>A tragic man seeking his home? You ignore the vast tapestry and rich cultural narratives to suit your narrow understanding of mythology — that's not understanding, it's dogma masquerading as depth.
And so on. In a sense, it will be a bit like dogfighting or—a bit more accurately, I would say—Pokémon. People won't so much as engage in the fight itself, but pick their champion fighters, like Claude, or Copilot, or whatever is available right now, and cheer them on based on the sassiness of the aphorism. I guess you could argue that it isn't a significant departure from prior modes of ignorant debate, but I think this is fundamentally different—at no point ever will a single thought be required to pass through the heads of either speaker. It will unending be and trade of empty rhetoric and GPT-aphorisms. Neither person will ever engage with the topic, nor will they understand why their chosen AI says the things that it does. They will accept it as factual because the great AI wrote it. One is led to remember Plato's story of Theuth in Phaedrus:
>when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Quite bleak.
Page 1