Well, this is possibly the most interesting article on AI I've read so far. Where I came from approaching the article: I dislike AI and think it will do more harm than good. This seems to be the pattern with most of the technologies we invent, at least the ones which aim at making our life easier or making more money. Sure, AI can be used otherwise, but I don't think its fundamental purpose or the way it is being deployed is benevolent ot principled. As a teacher and writer so far I think its potential for making people less skilled is much greater than its potential for being helpful. That said, I couldn't deny the skill with which you fine-tuned the AI here and the quality of its final answer. It awed me a little bit. Not sure yet what to make of that. Is this an example of how AI could open up complex topics for non-scholars, or just the devils fruit in a form I find sweet? Will this prevent people from breaking their teeth on learning how to study, prevent them from making real relationships with actual pandits? On one level, this seems just a new iteration of an old argument-- like, "Are Iphones providing social connection to the isolated or isolating those who would have been otherwise socially connected?" Food for thought.
Wow. You and I think alike. I'm still not overly optimistic about how AI will augment the human experience, but this dialogue floored me to the point that I wanted to share it with others.
I also work in education, in the public school system here in New Zealand. I see the degradation in skill already. This flows on to a degradation in self-agency and fundamental psychological confidence. My clients, all teenagers, are very "identity oriented" and this convenience will, I'm afraid, not serve them well on that level. Why even learn something when AI can do it better?
I hope I'm wrong, but I predict that AI will more rapidly impact society than the advent of the internet or the iPhone. By the end of this year, we will shift so much cognitive load into the hands of AI. Not small decision stuff, but big decision stuff.
As devotees of God, we have a diametric view to the entire point of our existence. This affords us scope to create our own nomenclature in relation to AI. For example, I'm careful not to conflate its ability to assimilate vast amounts of information and represent it as "intelligence". I really don't even like to call it "artificial intelligence" but if I develop my own vocabulary I fear I may be unintelligible to others.
Like it or not, this is where we're headed. Fortunately, we've been gifted resilient principles such as yukta-vairagya and can find a way to utilise the tech. Before this conversation, I had a dread feeling about that.
Here is a piece I wrote a while back, dealing with some similar thoughts: https://tricycle.org/article/chatgpt-sentient-being/?utm_campaign=01981770&utm_source=p3s4h3r3s. I have a Buddhist background, and am still very much informed by it, but don't actually identify as a "Buddhist thinker" as I'm described here. I've had a very eclectic spiritual life in Jewish practice, Tantra, and both advaitavedanta and bhakti which has taught me a lot. I have an abiding interest in interfaith dialogue and learning, but I have found myself returning to bhakti-yoga at the end of my searching, and then finding my way to the Gaudiya-Vaishnava tradition, which is what drew me to your Substack. Yukta-vairagya is definitely the guiding principle to apply here! Thanks for the conversation.
Huh. We do think alike! I agreed with everything you say, and have also thought about my own vocabulary, for similar reasons! Thank you for the piece and for these subsequent thoughts as well.
I'm teaching today, but can't wait to read your article when I get some down time this afternoon. Honoured to make your acquaintance.
I'm in my fifties and have been involved with bhakti practices for most of that. I'm wanting to grow in the area of being able to not only live, but communicate the essential teachings in a non-dogmatic way. I don't think dogma is going to help people in where I see the future going.
We have to become saints, not dogma pushers or movement recruiters.
"I think we need to use language in a way that does not anthropomorphize AIs, both for our own mental health and even more so for that of our children. "
!!!!!!!! This line from your article excites me. Nomenclature! Our language frames our mindset. I think we're on the same track.
Well, this is possibly the most interesting article on AI I've read so far. Where I came from approaching the article: I dislike AI and think it will do more harm than good. This seems to be the pattern with most of the technologies we invent, at least the ones which aim at making our life easier or making more money. Sure, AI can be used otherwise, but I don't think its fundamental purpose or the way it is being deployed is benevolent ot principled. As a teacher and writer so far I think its potential for making people less skilled is much greater than its potential for being helpful. That said, I couldn't deny the skill with which you fine-tuned the AI here and the quality of its final answer. It awed me a little bit. Not sure yet what to make of that. Is this an example of how AI could open up complex topics for non-scholars, or just the devils fruit in a form I find sweet? Will this prevent people from breaking their teeth on learning how to study, prevent them from making real relationships with actual pandits? On one level, this seems just a new iteration of an old argument-- like, "Are Iphones providing social connection to the isolated or isolating those who would have been otherwise socially connected?" Food for thought.
Wow. You and I think alike. I'm still not overly optimistic about how AI will augment the human experience, but this dialogue floored me to the point that I wanted to share it with others.
I also work in education, in the public school system here in New Zealand. I see the degradation in skill already. This flows on to a degradation in self-agency and fundamental psychological confidence. My clients, all teenagers, are very "identity oriented" and this convenience will, I'm afraid, not serve them well on that level. Why even learn something when AI can do it better?
I hope I'm wrong, but I predict that AI will more rapidly impact society than the advent of the internet or the iPhone. By the end of this year, we will shift so much cognitive load into the hands of AI. Not small decision stuff, but big decision stuff.
As devotees of God, we have a diametric view to the entire point of our existence. This affords us scope to create our own nomenclature in relation to AI. For example, I'm careful not to conflate its ability to assimilate vast amounts of information and represent it as "intelligence". I really don't even like to call it "artificial intelligence" but if I develop my own vocabulary I fear I may be unintelligible to others.
Like it or not, this is where we're headed. Fortunately, we've been gifted resilient principles such as yukta-vairagya and can find a way to utilise the tech. Before this conversation, I had a dread feeling about that.
Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Here is a piece I wrote a while back, dealing with some similar thoughts: https://tricycle.org/article/chatgpt-sentient-being/?utm_campaign=01981770&utm_source=p3s4h3r3s. I have a Buddhist background, and am still very much informed by it, but don't actually identify as a "Buddhist thinker" as I'm described here. I've had a very eclectic spiritual life in Jewish practice, Tantra, and both advaitavedanta and bhakti which has taught me a lot. I have an abiding interest in interfaith dialogue and learning, but I have found myself returning to bhakti-yoga at the end of my searching, and then finding my way to the Gaudiya-Vaishnava tradition, which is what drew me to your Substack. Yukta-vairagya is definitely the guiding principle to apply here! Thanks for the conversation.
Huh. We do think alike! I agreed with everything you say, and have also thought about my own vocabulary, for similar reasons! Thank you for the piece and for these subsequent thoughts as well.
I'm teaching today, but can't wait to read your article when I get some down time this afternoon. Honoured to make your acquaintance.
I'm in my fifties and have been involved with bhakti practices for most of that. I'm wanting to grow in the area of being able to not only live, but communicate the essential teachings in a non-dogmatic way. I don't think dogma is going to help people in where I see the future going.
We have to become saints, not dogma pushers or movement recruiters.
Chat later, once I've read your piece.
"We have to become saints, not dogma pushers or movement recruiters."
Couldn't agree more.
"I think we need to use language in a way that does not anthropomorphize AIs, both for our own mental health and even more so for that of our children. "
!!!!!!!! This line from your article excites me. Nomenclature! Our language frames our mindset. I think we're on the same track.
..... reading on ......