I’ve been using ChatGPT for editing and proofreading purposes and it’s been an enormous help in that regard. Sometimes it does give suggestions on polishing certain sentences to give them more “oomph” and I find that it’s often been correct. I do tread carefully not to let it write an entire article for me though as I still want my writing to be authentically in my voice. But having it help with edits for things like grammar, repetition, etc. is totally valid.
This is really good. I enjoyed reading it. AI is a tool to be used to help you accomplish something just like any other tool so I wouldn't have any problem employing it. It makes it easier to write the entire essay, but it also makes it more difficult in that you must make absolutely sure what you (or it) is writing reflects exactly what it is you want to say. This is an excellent comparison of altruism and benevolence, and is fun to read. If that was all you wanted to accomplish, then I think it works. If, however, you were attempting to show the moral difference between altruism and egoism, then this essay doesn't meet that goal.
Both. Upon asking the right series of questions, obtaining information with which you rationally concur, in addition to perspectives of which you were ignorant, upon editing it to reflect your esthetic style, it becomes your article! Depending on your self-esteem, you will give appropriate credit to the unknown engineers and "coders" who made the particular AI you chose possible.
This is timely for me. Have been thinking about how to address altruism vs capitalism. This provides a great alternative to the view of altruism by introducing benevolence. This is a much easier conversation to have vs having to introduce capitalism into the conversation immediately.
As for using AI. I think it is a great tool. Use it as such. What you can do is train it to write in your voice. Using a paid version you can build a custom gpt where you can feed it all of your precious writing to use as it's basis. Then prompt with your ideas to write new content.
I hope it's okay to comment. Read this through because I've more than once been done-in by altruism and am trying to arm myself with practical ideas.
First I really like the phrase:
"benevolence. It says you don’t have to light yourself on fire to keep someone else warm. You can offer a blanket instead."
I think that's visual and hilarious.
Secondly, the only thing I'd take issue with is where it says "the healthiest selfishness" It's tricky but I think it implies there is an unhealthy selfishness which implies that, say, being mean to someone or stealing or whatever can be selfish but it's not healthy. I do think that nothing you can do that's evil to your fellow man is ever in any way, shape or form, in your self interest. I think selfishness as a word needs to be defended but what to use for those things that are called selfish but aren't? Maybe call more things unselfish which they validly are.
This is a fine essay! But whether you use ChatGPT for all your essays depends on your purpose. When I use a GPS to get around the city, I don't remember my way and always have to allow the GPS to take me to my destination in that city. That gets me there but I haven't learned anything; haven't exercised my observational skills.
Thanks, Ginger. As part of my editing, I inserted "rational selfishness" in that sentence to contrast with the traditional, incorrect version, which sees selfishness as emotional, "do whatever you feel like, damn the consequences," and divorced from reason, often mistaking hedonism for selfishness. In hindsight, I could have elaborated a bit more. I have updated the article with a link to the Ayn Rand lexicon entry on selfishness. Cheers!
Good experiment. A couple of observations: 1) I think the Chat article, while it's surprisingly good and contains some catchy phrases, is superficial to someone who has read Ayn Rand, as it never gets to the real motivation behind "altruism." It reads like high-level cocktail party banter and is unlikely to inspire anyone towards rational selfishness. 2) Give yourself credit for asking Chat a good question. Few others would. 3) LLMs/AI programs only "know" what is already on the web. If you have truly new information, Chat will answer your question incorrectly.. Not long ago, I asked Chat to tell me how money is created. It provided a mixed and contradictory explanation, then contradicted its initial answer. (If Chat were a student, I would have given it an F.) 4) How much do YOU (the writer) learn by using Chat versus puzzling it out yourself? That alone makes writing worthwhile to me. 5) How good is Chat at "philosophical detection," a key objective (in my view) of "applied objectivism"? In other words, take a social or political phenomenon and analyze it through the lens of objectivist ethics and epistemology. I bet you are way better than Chat. 6) Don't stop writing! Everything you write is being learned by these AI programs, so by writing well, you are programming the LLMs properly. One last thought: I find people like to listen as much as they like to read, so you might amplify your excellent message by broadcasting your thoughts by an audible medium.
Thanks, Jim. Great comment/advice. Re. your first point, my primary ambition with writing is to expose non-Objectivists to rational ideas, and do it in a fashion that is accessible without being confrontational (mostly) and off-putting. I think this article, while appearing somewhat superficial to you and other Objectivists, may be an eye-opener for those who may not have questioned the premise of altruism. I'm not saying that it's sufficient, but it may plant an initial seed and interest in diving deeper. See the comment from Peter earlier in the exchange as an example. Cheers!
You are the one who decided it was a good article. ChatGPT is the tool you used. When I use a certificate maker on the computer, I'm the one who sets the parameters and I'm the one who decides that the result is a good style.
I’ve been using ChatGPT for editing and proofreading purposes and it’s been an enormous help in that regard. Sometimes it does give suggestions on polishing certain sentences to give them more “oomph” and I find that it’s often been correct. I do tread carefully not to let it write an entire article for me though as I still want my writing to be authentically in my voice. But having it help with edits for things like grammar, repetition, etc. is totally valid.
This is really good. I enjoyed reading it. AI is a tool to be used to help you accomplish something just like any other tool so I wouldn't have any problem employing it. It makes it easier to write the entire essay, but it also makes it more difficult in that you must make absolutely sure what you (or it) is writing reflects exactly what it is you want to say. This is an excellent comparison of altruism and benevolence, and is fun to read. If that was all you wanted to accomplish, then I think it works. If, however, you were attempting to show the moral difference between altruism and egoism, then this essay doesn't meet that goal.
Both. Upon asking the right series of questions, obtaining information with which you rationally concur, in addition to perspectives of which you were ignorant, upon editing it to reflect your esthetic style, it becomes your article! Depending on your self-esteem, you will give appropriate credit to the unknown engineers and "coders" who made the particular AI you chose possible.
Great example, Anders!
This is timely for me. Have been thinking about how to address altruism vs capitalism. This provides a great alternative to the view of altruism by introducing benevolence. This is a much easier conversation to have vs having to introduce capitalism into the conversation immediately.
As for using AI. I think it is a great tool. Use it as such. What you can do is train it to write in your voice. Using a paid version you can build a custom gpt where you can feed it all of your precious writing to use as it's basis. Then prompt with your ideas to write new content.
I hope it's okay to comment. Read this through because I've more than once been done-in by altruism and am trying to arm myself with practical ideas.
First I really like the phrase:
"benevolence. It says you don’t have to light yourself on fire to keep someone else warm. You can offer a blanket instead."
I think that's visual and hilarious.
Secondly, the only thing I'd take issue with is where it says "the healthiest selfishness" It's tricky but I think it implies there is an unhealthy selfishness which implies that, say, being mean to someone or stealing or whatever can be selfish but it's not healthy. I do think that nothing you can do that's evil to your fellow man is ever in any way, shape or form, in your self interest. I think selfishness as a word needs to be defended but what to use for those things that are called selfish but aren't? Maybe call more things unselfish which they validly are.
This is a fine essay! But whether you use ChatGPT for all your essays depends on your purpose. When I use a GPS to get around the city, I don't remember my way and always have to allow the GPS to take me to my destination in that city. That gets me there but I haven't learned anything; haven't exercised my observational skills.
Thanks, Ginger. As part of my editing, I inserted "rational selfishness" in that sentence to contrast with the traditional, incorrect version, which sees selfishness as emotional, "do whatever you feel like, damn the consequences," and divorced from reason, often mistaking hedonism for selfishness. In hindsight, I could have elaborated a bit more. I have updated the article with a link to the Ayn Rand lexicon entry on selfishness. Cheers!
Good experiment. A couple of observations: 1) I think the Chat article, while it's surprisingly good and contains some catchy phrases, is superficial to someone who has read Ayn Rand, as it never gets to the real motivation behind "altruism." It reads like high-level cocktail party banter and is unlikely to inspire anyone towards rational selfishness. 2) Give yourself credit for asking Chat a good question. Few others would. 3) LLMs/AI programs only "know" what is already on the web. If you have truly new information, Chat will answer your question incorrectly.. Not long ago, I asked Chat to tell me how money is created. It provided a mixed and contradictory explanation, then contradicted its initial answer. (If Chat were a student, I would have given it an F.) 4) How much do YOU (the writer) learn by using Chat versus puzzling it out yourself? That alone makes writing worthwhile to me. 5) How good is Chat at "philosophical detection," a key objective (in my view) of "applied objectivism"? In other words, take a social or political phenomenon and analyze it through the lens of objectivist ethics and epistemology. I bet you are way better than Chat. 6) Don't stop writing! Everything you write is being learned by these AI programs, so by writing well, you are programming the LLMs properly. One last thought: I find people like to listen as much as they like to read, so you might amplify your excellent message by broadcasting your thoughts by an audible medium.
Thanks, Jim. Great comment/advice. Re. your first point, my primary ambition with writing is to expose non-Objectivists to rational ideas, and do it in a fashion that is accessible without being confrontational (mostly) and off-putting. I think this article, while appearing somewhat superficial to you and other Objectivists, may be an eye-opener for those who may not have questioned the premise of altruism. I'm not saying that it's sufficient, but it may plant an initial seed and interest in diving deeper. See the comment from Peter earlier in the exchange as an example. Cheers!
Maybe Chat and other programs can help us spread the word faster. Wouldn't that be an excellent technological gift!
You are the one who decided it was a good article. ChatGPT is the tool you used. When I use a certificate maker on the computer, I'm the one who sets the parameters and I'm the one who decides that the result is a good style.