This philosophical dialogue was entirely generated by Claude 3.5 Sonnet, an Anthropic AI model, in response to the following prompt:
“I now want to develop a new post, that is related to this, but also fully independent (there will be no link, but hopefully you see the connection). This post will be in the form of a philosophical dialogue between two speakers (find relevant latin-sounding names) one of whom argues that gen AI should be evaluated based on the reasons it offers (the thesis in the previous article). His opponent should argue that this approach is flawed because the reasoning outputted by gen AI has no relation to the real causes or the process for reaching the result, it’s mere imitation. Here’s the response strategy, that should also be used to highlight how crucial philosophy is to evaluate such questions (the title of the post should be “one essential contemporary analytical philosophy insight for evaluating AI” or something similar, stressing that without a strong philosophical foundation, not just in AI philosophy but more generally, it’s hard to scrutinize arguments). The strategy involves Dancy’s conception of reason. Are you familiar with it? First, we may distinguish between motivating reason and normative reasons – a distinction Dancy reject. Then we focus on normative reasons – which are the only kinds of reasons according to Dancy. The result is that reasons are not in the head. They are not in the head of the human. They are not in the training or computation. They are fact about the world that justify.”
Subsequently, too bibliographic footnotes were added
This text is intended for educational and exploratory purposes, aiming to make philosophical concepts about reasons and AI evaluation accessible to a general audience. The dialogue format and arguments were constructed by the AI system based on the prompt’s parameters and its training on philosophical literature. As a philosophy expert, I have reviewed the content and found it to be philosophically sound, requiring no corrections to its presentation of Dancy’s views on reasons or their application to AI evaluation.
One Response