Reflections of a first-gen philosopher part 4

Once again, it is time to hear the thoughts of me as I write them out in a continuous movement - like a goddamn orchestra - without much in the way of a care or a worry about what you think about it. We talk a lot about AI, don’t we? It’s either the death of thinking or the next best tool for it. But let us look at one of the most recent clauses used by UoE (that’s University of Edinburgh) in its new blistering and unapologetic anti-AI policy:

Intellectual autonomy: In leaving the articulation and organization of thought to an AI system, one eschews an activity that is integral to the study and practice of philosophy. This is a failure of intellectual integrity: it is a failure to think for oneself. (University of Edinburgh 2026).

Think for oneself. It is the clarion call of philosophy, the stereotype - right? It evokes images of the prodigal thinker, sitting alone like a Descartes or Boethius, writing out earth shattering philosophical arguments, for and against, to make some contribution to thought. All from the void of thought: Cogitationes ex nihilo (no idea if that is correct, I don’t be talking Latin).

But! we all know this is a croc-o-shit. The first everyday point is this - If I give my work to a proof reader, and they notice that the structure of a sentence could be better articulated and I take their view on board and make the changes, for example, I am using the passive voice or an oxford comma might improve readability, I am leaving the articulation and organization of thought to another. In such a minor and local case, that is deemed acceptable. Now, as far as I am aware, I need not cite that sentence as the corrective work of another - maybe in principle, but not in reality. Indeed, during my UG days it was fully recommended that I do give my essays to a proof reader. So on minor and localised things, why not an AI machine? If it is ok there, then surely it is ok here? Or am I missing something ominous and deadly about the AI proof reader? Secondly, in the course of philosophical study, how much of what we really write down comes from ourselves and how much comes from other authors, private conversations, drafts, films, novels, people in the street? It cannot be as simple a kind of solipsistic thinker reading and equating their brilliance to others through the written word. Nagel’s paper on Death is a case in point - Nothing he says is really original, and the fact that he didn’t quote Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Cicero etc should be seen as problematic for his intellectual autonomy.1

So, what about - let’s call it ‘philosophical facticity’ - the concepts that we inherit? Here are some: Substance, Dualism, Freedom, Forms? What here is, fancy word alert, heteronomous? These are already in the philosophical lexicon, and I rely on them when I try making a point - I also rely on you knowing them so that my point is understood. Without that, we suck, and could not talk without painstaking explanation of everything So why should we not ask what degree of dependence upon something external to the individual is compatible with intellectual autonomy?

But then again, should we continue with this almost heroic conception of epistemic independence? Shouldn’t we be looking at ways in which we think together? Especially as the testimony of others informs a large proportion of what we come to know, is thinking ‘with’ others really so vicious?

lets take an example. Suppose I write the following:

Nagel’s deprivation account fails to see that deprivation requires a subject capable of being deprived.

Now, suppose my supervisor reads that and says:

‘I, your glorious, and omniscient supervisor, say this is unclear. You should make the temporal location of the subject of harm explicit’.

So I go away and write:

Nagel’s account requires an explanation of when the alleged deprivation obtains, since after death it appears to us that there is no subject that can be subjugated to such subjugations.

Clearly my articulations, thoughts, and evidences have been affected by someone else. Had my supervisor not intervened, my awesome alliteration would never see the light of day. I would hazard a guess that if this was you and someone said ‘oh you didn’t think for yourself’, you would slap the taste outta their mouth. So, if we substitute an AI for the supervisor - where does the autonomy go? Or those fans of Peter Sarstedt - where do you go to (my autonomy).

So, here is what I think:

Intellectual autonomy cannot, really, plausibly mean causal independence from external influence. Surely, it must concern the the agents relationship, or role, to the reasons, claims, and arguments they ultimately endorse. I don’t think that is too controversial, and seems to be a pretty stock position at this point. But let us consider this:

Student Biggus produces an argument because they half-remember something a You Tube lecture said. Biggus cannot explain the second premis without struggling, and accepts the conclusion because it sounds right and is a valid hypothetical syllogism.

Student Dickus asks AI to criticise an argument they made. It spots equivocation. Dickus looks at how the equivocation came to be, spots it, then makes a change.

Why should we priviledge Biggus over Dickus?

Back to Nagel. Those who were present for my reading of his much exalted death paper know what I think of that paper, and use it as my whipping boy. But, as much as I informally and humerously charge him with plagerism (the respected word for that for people that are respectable in the field is: anticipated. For example, ‘Kierkegaard anticipated Heidegger’. Did he, really? Or did Heidegger read Kierkegaard and then blatantly use his ideas without citing him, hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?) I do want to say that he does what we should be striving for instead - intellectual responsibility with the inherited intellectual tradition.

Thus I think we should look at a distinction:

the genealogy of thought is one that is indefinitely social.

and

the responsibility of thought is one that can remain for the individual.

Moving on - but write that down.

For me, the myth of the self-contained thinker has been exposed against the complacency of the academic world. Seminars, Conferences, Supervisor meetings, informal chats, formal chats, peer review, spellcheckers, proof readers, all contemporary (more or less) ways of creating philosophical writing. The arrival of AI, however, has created an issue for the blinkered academic world and the fiction of a self-enclosed wisdom wizard is under threat.

One common response seems apropos: you wouldn’t send me to the gym for you to get fit. So don’t use AI, bucko.

That is a good response. But it is also a bit shit since it is one dimensional. it trades on this: you input into the AI and whatever comes out, you copy and paste. thus, the AI does the work and you expect to get ‘fit.’ Some people do that, sure. Some people don’t. Throwing everyone into the ‘useless AI user’ barrell seems like a stretch. But what if I went to the gym with you instead? What if we ignored the one-dimensional part and created a..second dimension? we could get fit together? you could watch me get buff and stuff and find inspiration for your own buffness and stuffness. Thus, we can ask: do human intellectual relationships exhibit the same danger? What if my supervisor wrote an argument for me to consider and review? and I took the point - a point I would never have the wits to see? Would I cite the excersise? The inspiration? ‘thanks to x or making me think of this point.’ At this point, the epistemic dependence we have seems to fly in the face of the holy grail of ‘thinking for oneself.’ we are constantly told to ‘put ideas into your own words’ - and while that has a lot of benefits, and does require thinking, it is not really ‘thinking for oneself’.

Should we exclude AI from the epistemic community wholesale? AI seems to have its uses, but simply citing each and every use of it (Should I cite Google AI when I find a hot sauce recipe? will my dinner guests refuse my culinary delights because I got the recipe from AI? I made it with thine own hands! But the intellectual ‘chef’ part was from AI.) seems to border on the ridiculous. maybe AI isn’t such a bad thing…maybe its the worse thing ever created and we are all spiralling the doomsday culture vortex. Maybe philosophy will adapt. personally I don’t know. But! I do think Schopenhauer was right to say (and I am paraphrasing from memory, so don’t quote me) that truth has a process of being despised, tolerated, and finally excepted as self-evident. AI looks like it will go through the same ‘Schopenhauerian tunnel of inevitability’. Maybe then the ‘how I made this’ Blue Peter doctrine will evaporate like Florida rain. Don’t believe me about the Schopenhauer thing? Look at when the good ol’ typewriter first came on the scene and the absolute scandal that created amongst the more dignified and sophisticated educated classes, yar.

Andrew.