AI and Writing

Greetings,

AI is a hot topic currently, people are playing with AI and art, throwing interesting topics at it to see what it can produce. Some are throwing topics at its chat engines to see what it can produce in the way of written articles and so forth, to see how they compare in comparison to those written by human beings. There is also discussion about whether AI is a threat to people's jobs, whether we will be able to tell whether someone has simply asked an AI to write an article, or has written it themselves. I have some things to say about this topic, and those associated.

In my opinion what is being presented as "AI" is not true AI at all. AI stands for Artificial Intelligence. In my mind, this would imply some sort of sentience on the part of the creation, some sort of autonomy, these current creations do not have this, for which I am most grateful. Thus, I would refer to them as MI, or Machine Intelligence. There is a certain amount of autonomous thought, but it requires prompting from an outside source to work. Then again, I am not qualified in the area, so this is (very much) a layperson's opinion.

If you're worried about this AI taking over your job, because it can produce information, write articles and so forth by collecting information the first thing that you need to do is to stop feeding it. Every time a person asks it a question, asks it to write something, tells it how to improve, it gets better at what it does, it improves. You are arming the weapon that is pointed at you, it is like the rabbit telling the hunter where they will be eating, or its path so the hunter can make an easier shot.

This goes for people who are using it to write things and also those who are using it for AI Art. By using it to learn about art and how we think you are also teaching it to think in alternative ways. Stop feeding it.

Next, for all those who have or are considering producing articles of writing of any kind through AI, as an author, I would like to say something, screw you. You are cheapening what I do. You are cheapening what every author on the planet does. You are giving an "out" to people, legitimising it by using it more often, allowing people to be lazy about writing. You are devaluing writing and the value of writers. You are stealing the jobs of researchers, writers, and editors. You are devaluing human products.

Consider that in a piece of writing, especially one that goes to print on a public medium, published in a book, newspaper, or magazine, consider:

• time spent researching the article; 
• time spent writing the article;
• time spent editing the article;
• time spent re-writing the article;
• time spent formatting the article for publication.

By using AI chat-bots or AI writers to produce articles or so forth you are cheapening the human efforts that go into this process. You put in a subject, the AI researches and writes the article for you. It is lazy, you have learned nothing from the process, except how to operate the AI, you are a button-pusher, not an author.

When the AI comes along and takes your jobs because it has learned too much and you can be replaced by someone who can type the same subjects into an AI and produce sanitised articles, appropriate to what an organisation wants. Yes, it is a program, the censorship can be programmed in to it. When people forget how to write, how to research, and our population turns into sheep, following whatever they are fed, remember you were warned. Remember there was a voice that said, "No."

You have been warned.

Henry.

Aristotle: The Right-Wing Misogynist

 Greetings,

Through some research and reading in to philosophy it has come to my attention that Aristotle had misogynistic and right-wing tendencies in his political and social thought. He rejected Plato's thought of his Republic, which mind you contains questionable thoughts on the lines of eugenics (no really, it does), describing the flaws in Plato's idea of the perfect society and governmental form. These tendencies need to be discussed in some detail, exposed to the light of discovery so people may understand the flaws of this so-called "great man" of philosophy.

Of Government

"Aristotle was honestly conservative because of the turmoil and disaster that had come out of Athenian democracy." (Durant, 1957: 63) This points toward Aristotle being directed toward the more conservative side of politics as a result of the failures he has seen in the "birth-place of democracy". His reaction to this situation was to reject the Republic of Plato, "Aristotle fights the realism of Plato about universals, and idealism of Plato about government." (Durant, 1957: 64). His view is that maybe Plato's ideal of his communistic society may have worked in the distant past with smaller communities, the problem is that it doesn't work with larger societies with wider divisions of labour.

"where the division of labor into unequally important functions elicits and enlarges the naatural inequality of men, communism breaks down because it provides no adequate incentive for the exertion of superior abilities. The stimulus of gain is necessary to arduous work; and the stimulus of ownership is necessary to proper industry, husbandry and care." (Durant, 1957:64)

All that has been demonstrated so far is that Aristotle is not in favour of Plato's model and that he is not in favour of democracy, or communism for that matter. His political feelings on the matter are further explained in the same text, based upon the problem of the "average" human being, and more important that there are those who are "below average".

How far right?

"Because the people are so easily misled, and so fickle in their views, the ballot should be limited to the intelligent. What we need is a combination of aristocracy and democracy." (Durant, 1957:70). His method would limit the ballot to a selection of the population. His aristocracy is one based on education, the ones who vote are the educated. Only those who have been prepared for the task will be allowed to vote, "the human average, is nearer to the beast than to the god. The great majority of men are natural dunces and sluggards;" (Durant, 1957:65). His politics are hard-hitting and pointed toward an elite making the decisions, at least they will be an educated elite; and it is likely that these will primarily be men.

Of Relationships

"Woman is to man as the slave to the master, the manual to the mental worker, the barbarian to the Greek. Woman is an unfinished man, left standing on a lower step in the scale of development. The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules and the other is ruled; and this principle extends, of necessity, to all mankind." (Durant, 1957:66)

The woman, according to Aristotle is definitively subservient to the man. The one serving the other as is described above. Once again, he attacks Plato's ideas of making woman more like the man so they can do the same sort of things, "rather dissimilarity should be increased; nothing is so attractive as the different." (Durant, 1957:66). Aristotle would not have his women changed to men but kept the same as they are because they are more attractive that way; this is for the purposes of marriage, of course. This reflects his more conservative views.

Of Marriage

"As if to give the male an indispensable advantage, he advises him to defer marriage till the vicinity of thirty-seven, and then to marry a lass of some twenty years." (Durant, 1957:66). The marriage of teens which occurred in the Middle Ages is certainly not a practice advised by Aristotle. Indeed he discusses the importance of waiting until they are of a suitable age before marrying. "The union off male and female when too young is bad for the creation of children; ... Health is more important than love." (Durant, 1957:67). His focus is on the production of off-spring and population control, not the relationship between man and woman, and the former he regards as a matter for the state, along with education.

How will you react?

Had most of these ideas been intimated by some contemporary person of influence, or celebrity today, then all of their books would be burned, CDs ceremoniously smashed and burned, and  products boycotted. However this is Aristotle, from which we get the "Aristotelian logic" among other important thoughts and axioms. His definitive leanings toward the right of politics, they could be explained as being "a part of his culture" or "a part of his time", as could his feelings about the opposite sex. The same were actually used by later generations, as is evident in some medieval cultures; many of his thoughts are still influencing the way we think and the way do things now.

When a book is read it is the expression of an individual's thoughts. The reader then has the option of accepting those thoughts, whole, in part, or not at all. The same could be said of a person's music. You don't have to like an entire album; you don't even have to like the person who produces the music to like it. The important thing here is that there needs to be a separation of the individual from the product.

If you dig deep enough, you will find skeletons in anyone's closet. 

How you react to that skeleton when it is exposed is up to you. Remember that many of the writers of the past were living in vastly different times to our own, this needs to be taken into account when you read their material. Remember, everyone is human and makes mistakes, and has quirks to their character. Is it necessary to burn books and destroy items when a person is "found out"? If this is so, then we are going to run out of books fast, because there are a lot of historical writers that should be first on the chopping block, and a lot that will have to be "excused" because they are "useful"...

One final thought, when does this lead toward censorship?

Cheers,

Henry.

Bibliography

Durant, W. (1957) The Story of Philosophy (2nd edition), Simon and Schuster, New York, p63