My 'Two Conceptions of Instrumental Thought' has just come out in The Philosophical Quarterly. I argue that means-end reasoning requires having a substantive conception of one's final ends as instrincally good. https://t.co/9qRqtP76Mm
Replacing my classes with an emergency 'teach in' due to canvas outage (just me talking about old email clients, the canvas precursor 'Chalk' and doing impressions of a dial-up modem connecting to internet)
I wrote about what is lost when we settle for the standard academic adaptations—in class writing, etc.— in the age of AI and what it might mean to think bigger https://t.co/BGdf67Dlls
I worry that this is massive cope on the side of teachers. It’s one thing to say, in-class writing is the best we can ask for in the age of AI, but to declare that we’ve "revived student writing" and ignore the enormous loss—*1000s* of hours of writing—is myopic and disastrous
I was happy to write for @firstthingsmag about this new volume of Elizabeth Anscombe's remembrances of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Link: https://t.co/yKo2N1oDE3.
@LedermanHarvey All that is required for it to ‘matter’ is that one wants to understand and preserve the distinction between Xing, and ‘functionally Xing’. And who ought to care more about that than philosophers? No need for any extra ethical concern.
That this should be the default position for humanities professors w/r/t AI seems so obvious to me that it's baffling @freganmitts describes it (accurately, I'm sure) as a "radical" option. What other options are even possible much less desirable?
This is an important point. Many who advocate AI use as a way of increasing educational equity are, unfortunately, going to accomplish the exact opposite.
@schafer_karl Yeah, I would be delighted to be wrong about the (possibility imminent, yet to be confirmed) drop-off in writing abilities, as well as my broader pessimistic instincts!