Is ChatGPT worth bothering with?

[CIN]

Based on a sample of one conversation, I'm going to say no, it isn't. This is my first try at using an AI program to help with philosophy, and I think it will be my last.

I was mulling over the question, 'why should we do what is good?' One possible answer that occurred to me is that good is self-recommending. So I decided to ask ChatGPT the question 'is good self-recommending?'

Here is ChatGPT's answer:



Self-recommending can be a good strategy, depending on the context and how it's done. Here are some factors to consider:

Pros of Self-Recommending:
Confidence and Initiative: It shows that you're confident in your abilities and willing to take the initiative. This can be especially valuable in job applications, networking, or when seeking new opportunities.
Direct Communication: By recommending yourself, you can ensure that others understand your strengths and what you're offering. It allows you to highlight specific skills or experiences that may not be obvious to others.
Tailored Message: You can tailor the recommendation to highlight the qualities that are most relevant to the situation, whether it's a job, a partnership, or a project.
Cons of Self-Recommending:
Perception of Arrogance: If not done tactfully, self-recommendation can come across as overly self-promotional or arrogant. It's important to strike a balance between confidence and humility.
Lack of Objectivity: A recommendation from someone else is often seen as more objective and credible. Self-recommendation may lack that external validation.
Cultural Norms: In some contexts or cultures, self-promotion might not be well-received, as it could be viewed as inappropriate or pushy.
Tips for Effective Self-Recommendation:
Be Specific: Instead of just saying you're great, explain why you're great. Highlight measurable accomplishments or specific skills.
Context Matters: Understand the context and the audience. In a job interview, it might be more acceptable to recommend yourself than in a casual conversation.
Be Humble: Acknowledge the role of others in your success or growth. For example, "I've had the opportunity to work with some great mentors, which has helped me develop these skills."
Use Evidence: Share examples or results that demonstrate your abilities, rather than just making general statements.
In conclusion, self-recommending can be good when done thoughtfully and in the right context. It can help you stand out, but it’s important to balance it with humility and to present your abilities with supporting evidence.



As you can see, ChatGPT read the question the wrong way round. Instead of 'is good self-recommending?', it read my question as 'is self-recommending good?' I wasn't really expecting ChatGPT to answer my question, but I did at least expect it to be able to read an English sentence properly. But even this was evidently expecting too much.

It looks to me that ChatGPT is just a badly programmed Chinese room. Which is not what I am looking for when I investigate philosophical problems.

I'm still thinking about my actual question. But I don't think I'll be asking an AI program for help in future.

[Impenitent]

the primary question should be what is good?

-Imp

[attofishpi]

I'm still thinking about my actual question. But I don't think I'll be asking an AI program for help in future.

No, AI is not going to help you with an obscure question like that. AI doesn't do any of its own reasoning, 'thinking' so pretty useless for checking an alternative analysis of a philosophical question. HOWEVER! If that question you had posed was part of its knowledge base repository, or if it could live analyse the internet happen upon that very question, perhaps a few humans that already had debated it, you would indeed have received the most statistically probable considerations that the HUMAN(s) had made and their likely most probable conclusions (thrown back at you for your own consideration).

AI is a great resource as I just mentioned in another thread. It's great for collating and summarising information (as a research tool). It's also a fantastic assistant in generating some basic computer code, especially if switching to a new coding language. I think of it like a calculator that instead of processing numbers, it processes language and mines mans knowledge.

It's really good at translating between languages (in my limited experience)

Are you truly unlikely to use such a resource tool again?

[FlashDangerpants]

That's not at all an obscure question in the field of Ethical Theory. A perfectly normal thing to consider is whether it is the same thing to say "X is good" and "I commend X" or "X is what we ought to commend" to see if we can natruralise good onto commendability somehow.

[attofishpi]

That's not at all an obscure question in the field of Ethical Theory. A perfectly normal thing to consider is whether it is the same thing to say "X is good" and "I commend X" or "X is what we ought to commend" to see if we can natruralise good onto commendability somehow.

Just so we're clear, this is the question asked of ChatGPT: 'is good self-recommending?'

So, according to you, that's not at all an obscure question in the field of Ethical Theory?

* bullshit *

[Veritas Aequitas]

The OP is the reflection of the person's intelligence and ignorance of how AI works based on the 'deep learning' mechanisms in Large Language Models.
ChatGpt is basically still GIGO, thus it also mirror's the intelligence of the human who interact with it. So, one need to use it intelligent to one's advantage.

If I am not mistaken there are now courses in Uni and elsewhere on "Prompt Engineering' i.e. teaching how to interact with AI effectively and optimally.

It is well understand 'good' is a very loose term, so context is very critical:
See the difference from the OP when context is added:

Me to ChatGpt
Within the subject of Morality and Ethics 'is good itself self-recommending?

ChatGPT Wrote
The question "Is good itself self-recommending?" probes the intrinsic nature of good and whether recognizing something as good is sufficient to motivate moral action or approval without requiring external justification.

Key Perspectives on the Question:
1. Platonic Perspective:
In Plato’s philosophy, the Form of the Good is the highest reality and inherently desirable. Recognizing the Good aligns the soul with its natural purpose, making it self-recommending by its very essence.

2. Kantian Perspective:
For Kant, the good is tied to the good will, which acts out of duty and reverence for the moral law. The moral law, discerned through reason, is inherently self-recommending because it commands respect and motivates action autonomously, independent of external incentives.
However, the notion of "good" for Kant must be guided by reason and aligned with the Categorical Imperative to avoid mere subjective inclinations.

3. Aristotelian Perspective:
Aristotle sees the good as that which all things aim for (eudaimonia or flourishing). The self-recommending nature of good arises from its role as the ultimate end of human action. However, understanding and pursuing the good requires virtue and practical wisdom (phronesis).

4. Modern Ethical Theories:
Consequentialism (e.g., Utilitarianism): The good is often defined in terms of maximizing utility or happiness. Its self-recommending nature depends on its ability to align with individual or collective well-being.
Deontology: Similar to Kant, duties or rules are considered intrinsically good and self-recommending when rationally justified.
Virtue Ethics: The good is self-recommending to those who possess the virtues to perceive and act upon it properly.

5. Critiques and Challenges:
Humean Skepticism: Hume challenges the idea that recognizing good alone can motivate action, as he views reason as "the slave of the passions." For Hume, moral motivation arises from sentiment, not the intrinsic nature of good.
Metaethical Relativism: If the good is context-dependent, its self-recommending nature may vary across cultures or individuals, undermining a universal claim.

6. Your Proposed Moral Framework:
In your framework, where morality focuses on reducing and preventing evil to allow the good to manifest naturally, the self-recommending nature of good could be seen as conditional. Good might not inherently compel action but becomes desirable as evil is mitigated, making space for its spontaneous realization.

Conclusion:
Whether the good is self-recommending depends on the framework one adopts. In universalist or rationalist approaches (e.g., Plato, Kant), good is inherently self-recommending. However, from empiricist or relativist views, additional factors like sentiment, cultural context, or practical consequences may be required to make the good compelling.

If one do not agree with any of the above views, one can counter AI with their own views and ask AI to comment on it.

[Age]

The OP is the reflection of the person's intelligence and ignorance of how AI works based on the 'deep learning' mechanisms in Large Language Models.
ChatGpt is basically still GIGO, thus it also mirror's the intelligence of the human who interact with it. So, one need to use it intelligent to one's advantage.

If I am not mistaken there are now courses in Uni and elsewhere on "Prompt Engineering' i.e. teaching how to interact with AI effectively and optimally.

It is well understand 'good' is a very loose term, so context is very critical:
See the difference from the OP when context is added:

Me to ChatGpt
Within the subject of Morality and Ethics 'is good itself self-recommending?

ChatGPT Wrote
The question "Is good itself self-recommending?" probes the intrinsic nature of good and whether recognizing something as good is sufficient to motivate moral action or approval without requiring external justification.

Key Perspectives on the Question:
1. Platonic Perspective:
In Plato’s philosophy, the Form of the Good is the highest reality and inherently desirable. Recognizing the Good aligns the soul with its natural purpose, making it self-recommending by its very essence.

2. Kantian Perspective:
For Kant, the good is tied to the good will, which acts out of duty and reverence for the moral law. The moral law, discerned through reason, is inherently self-recommending because it commands respect and motivates action autonomously, independent of external incentives.
However, the notion of "good" for Kant must be guided by reason and aligned with the Categorical Imperative to avoid mere subjective inclinations.

3. Aristotelian Perspective:
Aristotle sees the good as that which all things aim for (eudaimonia or flourishing). The self-recommending nature of good arises from its role as the ultimate end of human action. However, understanding and pursuing the good requires virtue and practical wisdom (phronesis).

4. Modern Ethical Theories:
Consequentialism (e.g., Utilitarianism): The good is often defined in terms of maximizing utility or happiness. Its self-recommending nature depends on its ability to align with individual or collective well-being.
Deontology: Similar to Kant, duties or rules are considered intrinsically good and self-recommending when rationally justified.
Virtue Ethics: The good is self-recommending to those who possess the virtues to perceive and act upon it properly.

5. Critiques and Challenges:
Humean Skepticism: Hume challenges the idea that recognizing good alone can motivate action, as he views reason as "the slave of the passions." For Hume, moral motivation arises from sentiment, not the intrinsic nature of good.
Metaethical Relativism: If the good is context-dependent, its self-recommending nature may vary across cultures or individuals, undermining a universal claim.

6. Your Proposed Moral Framework:
In your framework, where morality focuses on reducing and preventing evil to allow the good to manifest naturally, the self-recommending nature of good could be seen as conditional. Good might not inherently compel action but becomes desirable as evil is mitigated, making space for its spontaneous realization.

Conclusion:
Whether the good is self-recommending depends on the framework one adopts. In universalist or rationalist approaches (e.g., Plato, Kant), good is inherently self-recommending. However, from empiricist or relativist views, additional factors like sentiment, cultural context, or practical consequences may be required to make the good compelling.

If one do not agree with any of the above views, one can counter AI with their own views and ask AI to comment on it.

One could also comment on your claim that 'artificial intelligence also mirror's the intelligence of the human who interact with it', and note how absolutely self-explanatory ABSURD and RIDICULOUS this claim of yours is here.

[CIN]

I'm still thinking about my actual question. But I don't think I'll be asking an AI program for help in future.

No, AI is not going to help you with an obscure question like that. AI doesn't do any of its own reasoning, 'thinking' so pretty useless for checking an alternative analysis of a philosophical question. HOWEVER! If that question you had posed was part of its knowledge base repository, or if it could live analyse the internet happen upon that very question, perhaps a few humans that already had debated it, you would indeed have received the most statistically probable considerations that the HUMAN(s) had made and their likely most probable conclusions (thrown back at you for your own consideration).

AI is a great resource as I just mentioned in another thread. It's great for collating and summarising information (as a research tool). It's also a fantastic assistant in generating some basic computer code, especially if switching to a new coding language. I think of it like a calculator that instead of processing numbers, it processes language and mines mans knowledge.

It's really good at translating between languages (in my limited experience)

Are you truly unlikely to use such a resource tool again?

I probably won't. The essential problem with AI is that, unlike articles published in philosophy periodicals and books written by professional philosophers, its answers aren't peer-reviewed. That severely limits its trustworthiness.

I don't seem to need it for anything else.

That's not at all an obscure question in the field of Ethical Theory. A perfectly normal thing to consider is whether it is the same thing to say "X is good" and "I commend X" or "X is what we ought to commend" to see if we can natruralise good onto commendability somehow.

Just so we're clear, this is the question asked of ChatGPT: 'is good self-recommending?'

So, according to you, that's not at all an obscure question in the field of Ethical Theory?

* bullshit *

'Obscure' is a purely subjective term. No question is either clear or obscure in itself, it merely seems clear or obscure to the person considering it. Like Flash, I don't find this question obscure; you do. All that really shows is that you haven't spent as much time thinking about questions like this as Flash and I have.

I would say that my original question, 'why should we do what is good?, is absolutely central to ethical theory, and any suggested solution, such as that we should do what is good because good is self-recommending, must therefore also be central.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well I suppose this laptop has a whole special button for summoning MS Copilot, so perhaps that can have a go...

Me: can you name any philosophers who have naturalised the good to recommendation?

Cop: Yes, several philosophers have explored the concept of naturalizing the good, which involves grounding ethical values in natural facts or properties. Here are a few notable ones:

• Aristotle: In his work "Nicomachean Ethics," Aristotle discusses the idea of the "good life" and how it relates to human flourishing (eudaimonia). He argues that the good life consists of fulfilling one's natural potential and performing one's function well.

• Thomas Aquinas: Building on Aristotle's ideas, Aquinas integrated them with Christian theology. He believed that the good is grounded in the natural order created by God and that human actions should align with this natural order.

• Christine Korsgaard: A contemporary philosopher who has written extensively on moral philosophy and the sources of normativity. She argues that the good can be understood in terms of what we have reason to value, which is grounded in our nature as rational beings.

• John Stuart Mill: In his utilitarian ethics, Mill suggests that the good is what promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He grounds this in the natural human desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain.

These philosophers have contributed to the ongoing discussion about how ethical values can be derived from natural facts or properties. Does this help with what you were looking for?

Me: and can you think of any who have literally interpreted X is good as I recommend X?

Cop: Yes, there are philosophers who have closely linked the concept of "good" with personal recommendations. Here are a couple of examples:

• Richard Hare: Hare's theory of prescriptivism in ethics suggests that moral statements are not just expressions of approval but also prescriptions or recommendations for action. When someone says "X is good," they are essentially recommending X and advocating for it.

• Allan Gibbard: In his expressivist approach, Gibbard argues that moral judgments express an agent's planning attitudes. When someone says "X is good," they are endorsing a plan that includes X and recommending it as part of a rational decision-making process.

Both of these philosophers interpret moral statements as inherently tied to recommendations and personal endorsements, aligning closely with the idea that "X is good" can be read as "I recommend X."

Does this align with what you were looking for? If you have a specific context or philosopher in mind, feel free to share!

Me: which argument do you thing is stronger out of gibbard and hare?





Comparing Gibbard's and Hare's arguments is quite fascinating because both present compelling frameworks for understanding moral language.

Richard Hare's Prescriptivism:

Clarity: Hare's approach is very clear and systematic. He argues that moral statements are both prescriptive and universalizable, meaning they not only recommend actions but also imply that others should follow the same prescriptions in similar circumstances.

Action-guiding: This makes Hare's theory highly action-oriented, providing clear guidance on how one should act and what one should recommend.

Challenges: However, some criticize prescriptivism for not accounting well for deep moral disagreements where two prescriptions are irreconcilable.

Allan Gibbard's Expressivism:

Flexibility: Gibbard's expressivism offers a flexible way to understand moral language by linking it to planning attitudes and decision-making processes. He suggests that when we make moral judgments, we are expressing our acceptance of certain plans or norms.

Psychological Insight: This view provides a rich psychological insight into how we actually make moral decisions and navigate moral discussions.

Challenges: Critics might argue that expressivism struggles with explaining the objective nature of moral claims or the binding force of moral obligations.

Which is Stronger?:

If you value a clear, action-guiding ethical framework, Hare's prescriptivism might seem stronger because it offers a straightforward method for making moral decisions.

On the other hand, if you're interested in the psychological processes behind moral judgments and the flexibility to accommodate a variety of moral perspectives, Gibbard's expressivism might appear more robust.

Ultimately, the strength of each argument may depend on what aspects of moral philosophy you find most compelling or practical. Both theories offer valuable insights into the nature of moral language and ethical reasoning.

What do you think resonates more with your perspective on ethics?

[FlashDangerpants]

Copilot doesn't really have the skills to distinguish between them (Hare's model is cognitivist and Gibbard's is not), but it did an ok job of finding possible sources I guess.

Using it to actually write your argument for you like VA does is obviously a stupid idea though.

[CIN]

Well I suppose this laptop has a whole special button for summoning MS Copilot, so perhaps that can have a go...

Me: can you name any philosophers who have naturalised the good to recommendation?

Cop: Yes, several philosophers have explored the concept of naturalizing the good, which involves grounding ethical values in natural facts or properties. Here are a few notable ones:

• Aristotle: In his work "Nicomachean Ethics," Aristotle discusses the idea of the "good life" and how it relates to human flourishing (eudaimonia). He argues that the good life consists of fulfilling one's natural potential and performing one's function well.

• Thomas Aquinas: Building on Aristotle's ideas, Aquinas integrated them with Christian theology. He believed that the good is grounded in the natural order created by God and that human actions should align with this natural order.

• Christine Korsgaard: A contemporary philosopher who has written extensively on moral philosophy and the sources of normativity. She argues that the good can be understood in terms of what we have reason to value, which is grounded in our nature as rational beings.

• John Stuart Mill: In his utilitarian ethics, Mill suggests that the good is what promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He grounds this in the natural human desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain.

These philosophers have contributed to the ongoing discussion about how ethical values can be derived from natural facts or properties. Does this help with what you were looking for?

Me: and can you think of any who have literally interpreted X is good as I recommend X?

Cop: Yes, there are philosophers who have closely linked the concept of "good" with personal recommendations. Here are a couple of examples:

• Richard Hare: Hare's theory of prescriptivism in ethics suggests that moral statements are not just expressions of approval but also prescriptions or recommendations for action. When someone says "X is good," they are essentially recommending X and advocating for it.

• Allan Gibbard: In his expressivist approach, Gibbard argues that moral judgments express an agent's planning attitudes. When someone says "X is good," they are endorsing a plan that includes X and recommending it as part of a rational decision-making process.

Both of these philosophers interpret moral statements as inherently tied to recommendations and personal endorsements, aligning closely with the idea that "X is good" can be read as "I recommend X."

Does this align with what you were looking for? If you have a specific context or philosopher in mind, feel free to share!

Me: which argument do you thing is stronger out of gibbard and hare?




Comparing Gibbard's and Hare's arguments is quite fascinating because both present compelling frameworks for understanding moral language.

Richard Hare's Prescriptivism:

Clarity: Hare's approach is very clear and systematic. He argues that moral statements are both prescriptive and universalizable, meaning they not only recommend actions but also imply that others should follow the same prescriptions in similar circumstances.

Action-guiding: This makes Hare's theory highly action-oriented, providing clear guidance on how one should act and what one should recommend.

Challenges: However, some criticize prescriptivism for not accounting well for deep moral disagreements where two prescriptions are irreconcilable.

Allan Gibbard's Expressivism:

Flexibility: Gibbard's expressivism offers a flexible way to understand moral language by linking it to planning attitudes and decision-making processes. He suggests that when we make moral judgments, we are expressing our acceptance of certain plans or norms.

Psychological Insight: This view provides a rich psychological insight into how we actually make moral decisions and navigate moral discussions.

Challenges: Critics might argue that expressivism struggles with explaining the objective nature of moral claims or the binding force of moral obligations.

Which is Stronger?:

If you value a clear, action-guiding ethical framework, Hare's prescriptivism might seem stronger because it offers a straightforward method for making moral decisions.

On the other hand, if you're interested in the psychological processes behind moral judgments and the flexibility to accommodate a variety of moral perspectives, Gibbard's expressivism might appear more robust.

Ultimately, the strength of each argument may depend on what aspects of moral philosophy you find most compelling or practical. Both theories offer valuable insights into the nature of moral language and ethical reasoning.

What do you think resonates more with your perspective on ethics?

Apologies for sending you on a wild goose chase. I hadn't noticed that my question was ambiguous. I wasn't suggesting this (taking G to stand for 'good' and S to stand for 'self-recommending'):

(∀x)(Gx = Sx)

I was suggesting this:

(∀x)(Gx → Sx)


I've been trying to get from 'is' to 'ought' via 'good'. (Skepdick once accused me of being too ambitious. He was probably right.) I claim to have got from 'is' to 'good' by the following argument:

1. [Saying] X is good [exhibits a pro-response to X and also] means a pro-response is appropriate to X.
2. A pro-response is appropriate to pleasure.
3. Therefore pleasure is good.

I owe this argument to A.C.Ewing.


I was then wondering how one might get from 'good' to 'ought', and it occurred to me that if an action is good, then arguably that is a reason for performing it: the action is self-recommending by virtue of being good. In theory this could take us part way to 'ought', because it might then be possible to argue that if there is a reason to perform an action, other things being equal one ought to perform it. It's all rather speculative at the moment, but that's the way my thoughts were going.


I can see that AI can be useful as a tool for pointing you towards people you may not have read. I want to read Christine Korsgaard — I came across an interesting article by her a few days ago, and I've put one of her books on my Christmas wish list, though I don't know if Santa will deliver it. I read Hare and went to his lectures in the 70s when I was studying PPE in Oxford; I've forgotten most of it now, but I think I still understand the basic idea of prescriptivism.

[Atla]

Yeah AI is usually good for listing things quickly.

In ethics, what views hold that the good (in the general sense) points to itself, it's the one end in itself?

The view that "the good" is an end in itself and points to itself as the ultimate end is often associated with ethical theories that emphasize intrinsic value or self-evident moral goods. These include:

Aristotelian Ethics (Eudaimonism):
In Aristotelian virtue ethics, the ultimate good is eudaimonia (flourishing or well-being). Aristotle describes it as the final end, something desired for its own sake and never as a means to something else. The good life is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, and this intrinsic value guides ethical reasoning.

Consequentialism (Particularly Utilitarianism):
In utilitarianism, the good (typically happiness or utility) is the ultimate end. Classical utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill argue that happiness or pleasure is valuable for its own sake and serves as the end to which all actions should aim.

Deontology (Kantian Ethics):
Immanuel Kant identifies the "good will" as an intrinsic good, valuable in itself irrespective of its consequences. While Kantian ethics is rule-based, it holds that certain ends, such as acting in accordance with moral law or respecting the autonomy of rational beings, are pursued for their own sake.

Hedonism:
Hedonistic theories propose that pleasure is the good that is intrinsically valuable. Philosophers like Epicurus claim that pleasure is the only thing worth pursuing for its own sake, making it the ultimate good.

Platonism (Forms of the Good):
In Plato's philosophy, the "Form of the Good" is the highest and ultimate reality, self-sufficient and pointing to itself. It is the source of all other goods and provides the standard for ethical action.

Objective List Theories:
Some theories propose that certain things (e.g., knowledge, love, or beauty) are inherently good and are ends in themselves. These views often imply that pursuing these goods is a final aim of human life.

All these views share the common theme of identifying a good or set of goods that are intrinsically valuable and serve as the foundation of ethical action and deliberation.

[attofishpi]

Just so we're clear, this is the question asked of ChatGPT: 'is good self-recommending?'

So, according to you, that's not at all an obscure question in the field of Ethical Theory?

* bullshit *

'Obscure' is a purely subjective term. No question is either clear or obscure in itself, it merely seems clear or obscure to the person considering it. Like Flash, I don't find this question obscure; you do. All that really shows is that you haven't spent as much time thinking about questions like this as Flash and I have.

Need I point out the irony in the above? You subjectively think that yourself and Flash have given consideration to boring questions like the one you posed to an AI, more than me! (* you were correct)

I far more interested in comprehending the true nature of REAL IT Y ...to waste my time on such nonsense.

[CIN]

Just so we're clear, this is the question asked of ChatGPT: 'is good self-recommending?'

So, according to you, that's not at all an obscure question in the field of Ethical Theory?

* bullshit *

'Obscure' is a purely subjective term. No question is either clear or obscure in itself, it merely seems clear or obscure to the person considering it. Like Flash, I don't find this question obscure; you do. All that really shows is that you haven't spent as much time thinking about questions like this as Flash and I have.

Need I point out the irony in the above? You subjectively think that yourself and Flash have given consideration to boring questions like the one you posed to an AI, more than me! (* you were correct)

I far more interested in comprehending the true nature of REAL IT Y ...to waste my time on such nonsense.

That's fine. You do things your way, I'll do them mine. No need for us to talk to each other again.

[attofishpi]

'Obscure' is a purely subjective term. No question is either clear or obscure in itself, it merely seems clear or obscure to the person considering it. Like Flash, I don't find this question obscure; you do. All that really shows is that you haven't spent as much time thinking about questions like this as Flash and I have.

Need I point out the irony in the above? You subjectively think that yourself and Flash have given consideration to boring questions like the one you posed to an AI, more than me! (* you were correct)

I far more interested in comprehending the true nature of REAL IT Y ...to waste my time on such nonsense.

That's fine. You do things your way, I'll do them mine. No need for us to talk to each other again.

Are you sure?

Don't say things like that, you know you need me.....you're 72