Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 36, No. 292.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org


    [1]    From: Henry Schaffer <hes@ncsu.edu>
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.288: death of the author 2.0 (51)

    [2]    From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.288: death of the author 2.0 (16)

    [3]    From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.288: death of the author 2.0 (27)


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2022-12-10 22:14:08+00:00
        From: Henry Schaffer <hes@ncsu.edu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.288: death of the author 2.0

And then here's an instantiation which is actually being used.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/10/chatgpt-ai-helps-written-
communication/

--henry

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 3:04 AM Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:

>
>               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 36, No. 288.
>         Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
>                       Hosted by DH-Cologne
>                        www.dhhumanist.org
[...]           Subject: automatisation of authorship? (50)
>
>     [2]    From: Tim Smithers <tim.smithers@cantab.net>
>            Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.281: algorithms and AI (102)
>
[...]
> --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Date: 2022-12-09 09:58:50+00:00
>         From: Tim Smithers <tim.smithers@cantab.net>
>         Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.281: algorithms and AI
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> You write to Willard saying
>
>     "I know that for several years now you’ve been calling
>      for ways to think about AIs as, you know, not as
>      approximations to people.  They’re new kinds of beings
>      and we need to come to terms with such.  ..."
>
> I wonder how you come to call ChatGPT, and it's ilk, beings?
>
> This looks like a category mistake to me.  A big one.
>
> I am, I think, a being; a human being.  And, I think other
> people are beings.  ChatGPT, and it's ilk, together with
> anything else human built using AI techniques, are tools;
> artefacts of human efforts; used by human beings; not
> approximations to people.
>
> What's the being-ness you see in these things?  I see none.
> But I do see gross misrepresentation in suggestions that they
> are beings of some kind.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tim
[...]

--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2022-12-10 15:32:09+00:00
        From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.288: death of the author 2.0

I think we need to distinguish between artificial -intelligence-, which a
washing machine can have, and artificial -consciousness-, which does not
exist and probably never will exist. The fantasy that it does, or can,
comes from the equivocation that everything electrical is alike. I suspect
consciousness is as much a function of an organic body as an organic brain.

Jim R

What's the being-ness you see in these things?  I see none.
> But I do see gross misrepresentation in suggestions that they
> are beings of some kind.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tim
>

--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2022-12-10 14:02:51+00:00
        From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.288: death of the author 2.0

Dear Tim,

You are quite right in saying the these artefacts are tools. They are not
comparable to human beings.

But they are beings of a different kind — the word being has several
definitions. These artefacts constitute something that actually exists. They are
beings in this sense.

They are not sentient, they do not have personality, and the are not living.
They are not beings in those senses.

I see the first kind of being-ness in those things, but not the second.

Personally, I would not refer to ChatGPT as "a being”. But if you ask me whether
an artefact or a tool has some form of being-ness, I’d have to say that it does,
as do hammers, pianos, or sandwiches.

Philosophers and theologians, scientists and sociologists, designers and dogs
all divide the world in different ways. Each of them uses the term being in
different ways — and there are different categories of usage within each
separate community of speakers.

Yours,

Ken



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php