Good points: A friend of mine who writes a lot of book reviews writes drafts based on his notes and then has an AI “editor” (can’t remember which) go over his work and make suggestions. That’s a constructive use of AI….I’m just cynical enough to think that that will be more of the exception than the rule.
I seem to have run into this last week when someone posted a graphic on FB that said our country was “not divided” and showed two outlines of the USA with one almost completely red and “86.72%” and one with little blue dots and “13.28%”. I had to remind him that people, not land, vote and that the most recent AP poll had Trump at 50% and Harris at 48% of the popular vote.
My friend acknowledged my point, but someone else who appeared to be a 50-something Caucasian male responded with “That’s a democratic lie! There is no way Harris got 48% of the vote!”
But I remember in my younger years being stuck in a political echo chamber where information and arguments were being fed to me and I was a willing eater and repeater. Thinking is hard and understanding oftentimes requires humility.
The classic group sport of Thinking is Debate. Reasoned dispute with a position that one finds flawed or disagreeable. But what I notice on the Internet (particularly on American social media) is that Dissent is most often ignored, passed over in silence--even Blocked.* And if the dissent is engaged, the most common reply is quippage and glib sarcasm with a clear intent to summarily shut down all further discussion, rather than a sincere response intended as an invitation to continue the conversation. So at present, the favored "group input" is supportive agreement, often to the point of self-flattery, in order to enforce consensus and discourage critical examination, even that sincerely intended as constructive. That isn't real Thinking, the same way that reading a book and assenting to all of its claims without even attempting a contrarian view isn't real Thinking.
---
{*perhaps the widespread adoption of this model is a conditioned mimickry of the Legacy Media outlets that have long practiced the same policing, for instance with the narrow choice of guests on shows like Meet The Press.)
AI is not going to enhance deliberative thinking.
I think it comes down to how it gets used. Here’s a symposium I ran on the subject. https://www.millersbookreview.com/p/hug-the-robot-ai-and-the-humanities We’re definitely seeing some unimpressive uses—e.g., kids using it to write mediocre school papers. But there are other ways of using it, including helping a writer sharpen their thinking. I found this piece by Cal Newport interesting: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/what-kind-of-writer-is-chatgpt
If the deliberative thinking is the point of departure…..then AI can be helpful.
Good points: A friend of mine who writes a lot of book reviews writes drafts based on his notes and then has an AI “editor” (can’t remember which) go over his work and make suggestions. That’s a constructive use of AI….I’m just cynical enough to think that that will be more of the exception than the rule.
I read this book a few years ago and have thought of it many times since. It is clear and insightful. I hope more people read it!
It’s excellent!
I seem to have run into this last week when someone posted a graphic on FB that said our country was “not divided” and showed two outlines of the USA with one almost completely red and “86.72%” and one with little blue dots and “13.28%”. I had to remind him that people, not land, vote and that the most recent AP poll had Trump at 50% and Harris at 48% of the popular vote.
My friend acknowledged my point, but someone else who appeared to be a 50-something Caucasian male responded with “That’s a democratic lie! There is no way Harris got 48% of the vote!”
But I remember in my younger years being stuck in a political echo chamber where information and arguments were being fed to me and I was a willing eater and repeater. Thinking is hard and understanding oftentimes requires humility.
Understanding does require humility—a vastly underrated virtue.
Thanks, I think~~~~
:)
The classic group sport of Thinking is Debate. Reasoned dispute with a position that one finds flawed or disagreeable. But what I notice on the Internet (particularly on American social media) is that Dissent is most often ignored, passed over in silence--even Blocked.* And if the dissent is engaged, the most common reply is quippage and glib sarcasm with a clear intent to summarily shut down all further discussion, rather than a sincere response intended as an invitation to continue the conversation. So at present, the favored "group input" is supportive agreement, often to the point of self-flattery, in order to enforce consensus and discourage critical examination, even that sincerely intended as constructive. That isn't real Thinking, the same way that reading a book and assenting to all of its claims without even attempting a contrarian view isn't real Thinking.
---
{*perhaps the widespread adoption of this model is a conditioned mimickry of the Legacy Media outlets that have long practiced the same policing, for instance with the narrow choice of guests on shows like Meet The Press.)
Karl Popper said that thinking progresses by disagreement. I think that’s true. When we’re forced to react to someone’s thoughts, we develop our own.
This book has been on my TBR, now I think I need to go and read it.
It’s pretty fun and very helpful.
This was a great read. Thank you for sharing.