A Meta-Epistemological Reason for Rejecting AI-Written Philosophy (dailynous.com)

Eric Schwitzgebel, a philosopher at UCR, argues against accepting AI-written texts in philosophical discussions, emphasizing the importance of human-generated content in establishing the credibility of philosophical views. He introduces a concept he calls meta-epistemology, which highlights that the expertise of human authors serves as additional evidence for the quality of the ideas presented. In his view, the mere fact that a philosophical text or email was crafted by a knowledgeable person is a more compelling indicator of its worth than if it were produced by a language model (LLM), even if the content were identical. This viewpoint is significant for the AI/ML community as it raises questions about the role of AI in areas traditionally dominated by human insight and creativity. Schwitzgebel argues that human philosophers think and express ideas differently from LLMs, with subtleties in word choice and argumentation that signal deeper understanding. He contends that relying on AI to generate philosophical content could lead to passive engagement with ideas, undermining critical thinking. While he doesn't completely reject the use of LLMs in philosophical writing, he cautions against their wholesale acceptance, underscoring the need for awareness about the differences in thought processes between human experts and AI systems.